It's a monopoly. Microsoft has used it's monopoly powers in very bad ways. What if all the gas stations were owned by one company and they announced that they were modifying the nozzles to only fit their own brand of car? We'd have no choice and all the car companies would be out of business. If you're rich and don't like somebody who has a shoe store, you don't have the right to open a big shoe store across the street and price the shoes at half price just to put him out of business (and then be left with the rewards of a 'monopoly').

A while back, the New York Times called me about doing an editorial. They had reason to believe that I was leaning toward Microsoft. I was busy and it was hard to get time to do the editorial but the New York Times kept pushing me. Finally, I thought out my own opinions based on what I felt was right and wrong, legal and illegal, in business. I wrote an editorial that stated flatly that Microsoft was a monopoly and indicated why. I also indicated, that in the case of the browser, they should have to divest their own browser and pay Netscape (AOL) for all lost revenues, with penalties. I've read the entire ruling in this case, and the judge has set the framework for such a penalty, and even more. The judge's ruling leaves the proper management and ownership of Windows in doubt.

The New York Times didn't print my op-ed right away. After months, as I recall, they decided to run it. They sent me a rewritten version that followed the theme of Microsoft being the great innovator. It was a 180 degree reversal, with my name attached. I refused to let them run it and I refused to work on my version because I saw that they were setting me up to be good PR for Microsoft. Then I found out that one of the key Microsoft executives writes a column for the New York Times.

I'm sure that the New York Times can release either version with my name on it and be protected by the first amendment. But if I were to show you the versions, I'm sure that I'd be guilty of some heinous crime...Woz