The end of the 20th century had hinted towards the tremendous amount of technological advancement that had swept the entire century, eventually resulting in the emergence of newer global markets that are unique and different from the conventional industries as the newly emerged markets were driven by technological sophistication, boundless amount of knowledge, and numerous networks.
The industries that became the drivers of the newly emerged global markets were related to the production of information goods like for example, content, software, or distinctive professional expertise. A few pertinent examples of such newly emerged industries are all the Internet-based businesses, and the companies dealing with communications equipment and services that support the internet-based business, and also companies that are into development of new software like Microsoft.
While books, music and several other informative products existed even earlier in the market, the degree of ubiquity and omnipresence achieved by the newly emerged industries was simply exceptional and record-breaking. While most of the conventional industries were typically characterized with stable markets, slow paced and irregular entry and exit scenarios of the market, among others, the newly emerged industries on the other hand were characterized by aspects like negligible amount of marginal costs, value pricing, increased security to the intellectual property, as well as swift and recurrent entry and exit into the industry among others.
The new age companies driven by technology and the sheer momentum of development required by mankind, grew at a much more rapid pace than the conventional industries. In addition, many of these successful organizations overtook the conventional industries in terms of size as well as the global reach, at a much faster pace.
This rapid growth in size and therefore their ability to influence the thought processes of the entire mankind made them the cynosure of all eyes and they eventually attracted increased attention from all walks of life and often beyond what is logically required.
The driving force behind the success of these technology and software giants is way beyond mere crass need for money or undignified profiteering, but is piloted by entrepreneurial spirit and risk, which is essentially fueled by a missionary sense of purpose to dramatically improve the quality of modern life and living.
Microsoft in particular, has been driven by the need to a PC (personal computer) on every table. This sense of purpose and mission has driven the organization to develop many innovative products and services and quite often, innovating beyond the horizons of normal thinking.
Microsoft is an organization that has become the benchmark for the contemporary digital success. In its very success, it has attracted sufficient number of detractors, possibly even jealous. There is an acute sense of envy of Microsoft’s success and their own inability to achieve such a zenith of success. It has typically been a case of sour grapes that the dogs have been taking a bite at Microsoft’s feet.
Is there a maximum size that has been limited anywhere of an organization? Is there a limit that has been set for the size of profit for a commercial organization? Should innovation and relentless pursuit of purpose to improve the quality of human life be punished? Should innovation be shackled? Should entrepreneurs be warned that there is an upper limit for the size of their enterprise? Should an entrepreneur be punished because others cannot create competition? Should the free spirit of enterprise and mankind at large, which is the very hallmark of the big American dream, be reined in?
If the answer to any of the above questions is an emphatic yes, then undoubtedly Microsoft should be broken down into two or even three separate corporations.
Unfortunately, no one in their fullest sense, would even answer the above set of questions affirmatively, because, if the answer is yes, then a similar fate must befall the likes of Apple, Google, Intel, Coca-Cola, General Motors, and probably all the other fortune listed companies.
An affirmative answer to any of the above questions would necessarily mean that we are in effect setting an upper limit for the size and profit of a free enterprise. We are in effect limiting the need for disruptive innovation. We are in effective actually limiting the boundless efforts that such companies like Microsoft are putting in towards the improvement of the quality of human life, which would in turn impact negatively the human kind at large.
The minute the free enterprise is limited, it would eventually serve in killing the very spirit of the free enterprise itself and also kill the entrepreneurial effort. They would no longer be an incentive for creating business models that dramatically improve human life and work. It would be an era of equalization and also reviving the spirit of socialism.
Socialism is a complete anti-thesis of the spirit and the foundation of free-market capitalism. It would hit the very foundation of free thinking. All efforts of the enterprise would get sniffled and be capped forever.
Microsoft has been representation of what unfettered creativity can do to improve the quality of human life. Microsoft has always been on the right side of the law and is known to adhere to highest ethical standards, except for an occasional misdemeanors. Even in such occasions, when it was pointed to Microsoft of their mischief, the company is known to have quickly rectified and rested such a situation. This ultimately translates to the fact that Microsoft is being a good corporate citizen, by upholding truly all American values and all those things that free America stands for.
In light of such responsible behavior, should an organization be punished for their success by breaking it down into two or three separate organizations and eventually creating unnecessary and irrelevant barriers to its effective functioning? Should the punishment be meted out?
There are different schools of thoughts on this issue. While those in favor of breaking it down may or may not have realized that they are striking a blow at the very roots of free enterprise and setting the ball rolling towards decay and gradual degeneration of innovation and free market capitalism.
Breaking down a large organization to reign it in, is a wrong approach and such ideas are truly condemnable and must not be encouraged at any cost. Such an action would send out severe wrong message on the American intentions and it would lead to capping of American capability and innovation.
Possibly, in an extreme case, it might even lead to the flight of the American industry to different places across the globe, eventually leading to the complete breakdown of the American capital structure and industry, finally paving a way for a complete and untimely demise of the American economy.
If the same parallel were to be drawn towards countries and economies, it would be highly pertinent to break up the United States into three or more distinct nations that are independent of each other because the United States is virtually monopolistic and unfettered leader of the global economy.
If Microsoft is to be broken down, so should be the United States. Those who gave the clarion call for the breakup of Microsoft should rise and identify themselves and also confirm if they want the United States to be broken up. If the answer is no, they must substantiate it with sufficient amount of logical and scientific reasoning.
How can success be measured differently and why should rewards for success be different for different entities. America has always stood for complete freedom and responsible liberty. Almost always, all American corporations have measured themselves up to these standards and have always upheld responsible behavior, except for a few black sheep.
The solution to this issue is not to break down an organization that is as huge and successful like Microsoft, but rather to create a series of checks and balances that would make behemoths more responsible and transparent in their functioning. These corporations must be mandated to be open to much larger public and statutory scrutiny. They must essentially contribute to upholding the well-being of the people. This must not just be in the United States, but also in other large markets from which they profit from and even to some of the poorest economies of the world.
The products and services from these organizations must involve members of the larger public without impacting their competitive advantage. These large organizations must be definitely controlled and chained, so that, they do not inadvertently create an Evil Kingdom and eventually they also do not get into people’s lives and begin to work from under their skins without their knowledge.
Globalization has made a deep impact on monopolies in more than one way. The companies that were formerly monopolies in a specific economy, needed to fend and fight off competition from organizations globally. Globalization created a kind of a level playing field with access to different markets and free market trade across the length and breadth of the world, much to the disconcertment of the monopolistic attitudes. However, the intelligent global consumer today is also aware of efforts that will put him at a disadvantage and malicious intent by any organization to exploit a situation because of monopolistic tendencies is quickly responded to, and resisted at all fronts. So, monopolies with blackhearts do not strike a chord with a consumer today and Microsoft does not definitely have a blackheart.
These organizations, which already do, must be responsible for the privacy of their clients – small or big. These organizations must learn to respect the law, more in spirt than in letter, as well as both.
Behemoths like Microsoft must be answerable not only to their stakeholders alone, but also to the whole of humanity at large. These organizations must be forced to be governed in a rather tight manner, thereby disallowing them from making any unethical moves, either knowingly or unknowingly.
However, they must be allowed to continue their growth and profit making as is. They must also be allowed to raise and uphold the American values of freedom and liberty. They must be allowed to pursue technologies and methods that would ultimately lead to the improvement of quality of life for humanity as a whole.
Microsoft has been an individual’s dream to place a desktop in every home and office, which has much more than fructified. Given such a successful path that it has followed all these years to become what it is today, it is not right to break down because it has dared to pursue its purpose and has successfully chased its dreams.
References
Butts, C. (2010). The Microsoft Case 10 Years Later: Antitrust and New Leading "New Economy" Firms. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 8(2), 275-290. Retrieved March 28, 2016, from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&context=njtip
Economides, N. (2001). The Microsoft Antitrust Case. New York: The New York University. Retrieved March 28, 2016, from http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/Microsoft_Antitrust.final.pdf
Gereffi, G. (2005). The Global Economy: Organization, Governance, and Development. In R. S. Neil J. Smelser, The Handbook of Economic Sociology (pp. 160-172). UK: Russel Sage Foundation.
Hammond, G. (1990). Countertrade, Offsets and Barter in International Political Economy. London: Linter Publishers.
Lenard, T. M. (2000). Creating Competition in the Market for Operating Systems: A Structural Remedy for Microsoft. The Progress Freedom Foundation.
Liebowitz, S. J. (2000, January 28). Should Microsoft Be Broken Up? No. Breaking up Microsoft is Disruptive. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved March 28, 2016, from http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=68
Parloff, R. (2000, January 10). The Negotiator. FORTUNE.
Satell, G. (2013, April 14). The Secret of Microsoft's Success (And Some Lessons For Apple). Retrieved from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2013/04/15/the-secret-of-microsofts-success-and-some-lessons-for-apple/#51494afd3a7e
Savov, V. (2015, September 10). Apple's grand unifying strategy: high profit margins. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from The Verge: http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/10/9300231/apple-watch-iphone-sales-profits-strategy-market
Spencer, A. B. (2001). Antitrust and the Information Age: Section 2 Monopolization Analyses in the New Economy. Harvard Law Review(1623). Retrieved March 28, 2016, from http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=wlufac
