Argument #5: Blocking Microsoft's ability to compete will foster greater industry innovation.

Dr. Locke's argument : Dr. Locke argues that a private company, which has no power over consumers, cannot be concluded as being dangerous and that government intervention in attempts to spur innovation has no basis in validity. He concludes that the real motive behind Judge Jackson's conclusions is an objection to Microsoft's success and that those promoting government intervention do not foster innovation, they want to "sacrifice the best and brightest" in attempts to level the playing field so that "no one can rise to the top."

Response : Dr. Locke promotes an economic environment that allows the best and brightest to rise to the top, but yet he defends an economic environment dictated by a market monopolist that disallows the emergence of any possible competitor who may have better and brighter ideas, all the while allowing the monopolist to innovate as little as possible to maintain its market position. One cannot have it both ways. An open market in which competition flourishes is always in the best interests of consumers. However, a company, any company, will always act in its best interests first. With open competition, the interests of the company often coincide with those of consumers. What's good for the consumer is good for the company.

However, once a company reaches a dominant position in a given market, the interests of the company shift away from consumers to focus on simply maintaining market dominance. There are no more market forces at work to encourage the monopolist to innovate at breakneck speeds. After all, there is little to no more market share to be gained and no companies with which to compete. At this point, much more emphasis is placed on what is necessary to maintain that market dominance than is placed on consumer needs. Consumers may see a small degree of innovation from the market monopolist but nothing compared to the innovation that would be seen were the monopolist to face an open market competitor, and the small degree of innovation that is presented is generally a copy of functionality presented by a would-be competitor that the monopolist deems is necessary to maintain their position. The monopolist is rarely, if ever, the first to bring an innovation to market.

This is where government oversight is necessary. The intention of government is to work in the interests of consumers. As an open market, allowing vigorous competition, is always in the best interests of consumers, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that such a market exists, or as close an approximation as possible. Consequently, different operating rules apply to market dominating companies in order to ensure the existence of an open market. These operating rules do not "block Microsoft's ability to compete" as Dr. Locke would have us believe. Rather they operate to keep Microsoft from preventing others to compete with them. The existence of differing operating guidelines for a market dominator does not mean that the dominating company cannot or is not allowed to maintain its dominance of the related market. It only means that the company's dominance should be maintained through vigorous competition and innovation and not through economic coercion and exclusivity contracts that only serve to close the market to would-be competitors.

Dr. Locke states in response to argument #1 that "there is no threat from these dominant players so long as their competitors are legally permitted to enter the field, invent new products, and combine with each other to gain the needed market power." While a market dominator cannot legally disallow another company from entering a market, it can easily be seen how the same dominator can economically disallow that entrance. It does not matter to the would-be competitor whether there is a legal wall or an economic wall barring entry to the given market. It is still a wall. And, as a result, any possible innovations that would have been brought to that market by the would-be competitor are lost to consumers. While this is indeed in Microsoft's best interests, it is obviously not in the best interests of the consumer public.

Does government intervention in such situations result in greater industry innovation? History has illustrated that it does indeed. Even if this government intervention is not carried through to its conclusion, the mere presence of a government investigation can result in corporate missteps and policy changes that foster competition. As mentioned previously, antitrust investigations against Xerox aided in corporate decision makers second-guessing the usefulness of the technology coming out of its Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). The result? Apple was able to glean the graphical user interface designed by Xerox and develop the Macintosh, which fostered the rapid growth of that company. Antitrust investigations against IBM aided in corporate decision makers underestimating the viability of the personal computer market, leading to open system designs that fostered the creation and growth of companies like Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and many others, including Microsoft.

The fact that "Microsoft defeated its competitors" as Dr. Locke puts it has absolutely nothing to do with the current investigation and resulting trial. It is what Microsoft has done with its success that has drawn the eye of the government. The conclusion that Dr. Locke draws that the "real meaning" of Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact is that "the best brains must be crippled" is ludicrous. Microsoft is not being punished for having its Windows monopoly. In fact, Gates, Microsoft, investors, and consumers often benefit from this state. Microsoft is being punished for its attempts to use that monopoly to eliminate competition in markets in which Microsoft wishes to compete. Dr. Locke's attempts at misdirection from the core of the case fall short of being believable.