Argument #2: Microsoft's "monopoly power" allows it to "coerce" its customers.

Dr. Locke's argument : Dr. Locke argues that a private company has no power to force consumers to do anything since a private company is unable to threaten physical violence. He then goes on to say that economic power and political power are fundametally different and are not comparable.

Response : Dr. Locke easily dismisses the power of economic coercion as insignificant and incomparable to that of political power held by a government over its citizens. However, such a dismissal of this economic power is unwise. As a citizen, my life in many ways is determined by my freedom. A government creates laws by which I, as a citizen, must abide or risk losing degrees of that freedom. The same holds true in the business world. The success, or life, of my company is determined by cash flow. A market dominator, or monopolist, can dictate rules for a particular market by which any company that wishes to enter a dependent market must abide. Failure to do so allows the monopolist to have significant effects on my company's cash flow, or life.

Dr. Locke, also unwisely or perhaps deliberately so, limits the definition of Microsoft's "customers" to be general consumers when, in fact, Microsoft derives a large percentage, if not a majority, of its operating system revenues from sales to PC manufacturers. And while Microsoft does not have the ability to deprive a citizen of his or her freedom, Microsoft does indeed have the ability to deprive a PC manufacturing company of its life blood, being cash flow. Due to Microsoft's dominant position in the operating system market, newly manufactured PCs will not sell without the inclusion of the Windows OS. Thus, Microsoft's policies regarding the Windows OS have a direct impact on the PC manufacturer's cash flow in the same way governmental laws have an impact on personal freedom, the difference being governmental laws are generally created in the interests of its citizens whereas Microsoft's policies are created in the interests of the company and often not in the interests of its customers. As a result, Microsoft's policies of economic coercion can often be much more damaging than any governmental law which can be overturned.

The success of Microsoft's economic coercion tactics is evidenced by the emergence of the Linux operating system. As Linux is an open source development effort, there are no economic pressure points that Microsoft can exploit. Only an operating system with this type of foundation bares a chance against the market monopolist. However, Linux will never gain a true competitive status with Windows and widespread general acceptance until it is readily available as a pre-install on a variety of PCs, a market where Microsoft still exerts economic control. Only now that Microsoft is under the watchful eye of the Federal Government has Linux been able to gain a foothold in the delivered PC market since Microsoft dare not apply its usual strongarm tactics while under investigation.