[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[House]
[Page 29838]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   CONCERNING THE UNWARRANTED REGULATIONS TO BE IMPOSED ON MICROSOFT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to comment briefly on the 
findings of fact that were issued on Friday, November 5, in the United 
States District Court by Judge Penfield Jackson in the Microsoft case.
  Madam Speaker, this week we celebrate the tenth anniversary of a 
great moment in time when the Berlin Wall that divided Europe for 
generations came tumbling down. I was a young lawyer in the White House 
staff with Vice President Quayle in the fall of 1989, and I will never 
forget the sense of joy that I had in watching that accomplishment.
  When the Berlin Wall was torn down, the spirit of free enterprise 
flowed like a river, irrigating economic wasteland that had been 
Communist East Germany. How ironic, Madam Speaker, that at the same 
time that we are celebrating the tenth anniversary of the tearing down 
of the Berlin Wall, we are forced to watch the spectacle of this 
Justice Department attempting to build up a wall around a pioneering 
American company that has helped to make our Nation the unchallenged 
technological leader of the free world.
  While Microsoft fights to protect its freedom in court, freedom to 
innovate and to compete in the free market, this administration, the 
Clinton-Reno Justice Department, presses forward with its zeal to erect 
a Berlin Wall, if you will, of government regulation around America's 
most successful technological enterprise.
  Madam Speaker, this Justice Department's zealous campaign against 
Microsoft is the latest manifestation of the liberal obsession with 
punishing success. Here in Washington, because of the tasteless class 
envy that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
continually wage, Mr. Gates and other successful men and women have 
been vilified.

                              {time}  1930

  Yet in America, in the heartland of America, at the latest trade 
show, Mr. Gates and his company were applauded for bringing yet more 
new wonderful technology that will benefit all people in this world.
  Mr. Gates is a man who had a dream, a focus, a passion, an 
intelligence, and the savvy which for 25 short years has revolutionized 
the computer industry. Today, because of Bill Gates and his colleagues 
in the computer industry, people like me, my family, my grandmother, my 
wife's father, Hoosiers all over Indiana, and Americans everywhere can 
simply flick a switch and play video games against each other, access 
the same documents thousands of miles apart, and view real-time video 
images of their children, their grandchildren, and their family.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the enormous contribution that Microsoft 
has made towards making the United States of America the technological 
leader, and I am proud that a young man who served on this House floor 
27 years ago, Bill Gates, had the freedom and the opportunity to 
succeed so that a magnificent country such as ours could benefit from 
someone who pursued that American dream.
  Now, what does this decision say to the next young man or woman who 
wants to be Bill Gates? Who wants to create their own Microsoft? What 
does it say to our children in the 20-something years that have an idea 
and want to see it succeed? To me it says if one succeeds, then the 
government will come after them and will stifle their success.
  There are two central flaws in this opinion, this finding of facts. 
First is the finding that Microsoft's development of the Windows 
operating system has created an ``applications barrier to entry.'' In 
this theory they broke the law by trying to preserve that so-called 
barrier, including trying to destroy competing products. In my 
estimation, Microsoft has simply acted as any very rational competitor 
in the industry would act, trying to forward their product. They have a 
superior product. In most cases it appears to have been in the interest 
of the other companies to have their products work with Windows.
  For example, when they reached a deal with America Online to 
distribute their Internet browser instead of the Netscape browser, AOL 
did so not because of threats from Microsoft but because it benefited 
their customers. They wanted to sell the product because it was a 
better product. And then at the end of 1998, when they could have ended 
that exclusive arrangement, they decided they wanted to extend it. 
While Microsoft has been very aggressive in promoting its products, we 
do not punish aggressive competition in America.
  But, Mr. Speaker, the more egregious flaw in the findings is the 
reason that it is based on a pitifully outdated theory of tying. Now, 
if some competitor comes along with a better browser, frankly Microsoft 
can rapidly find itself at the losing end of that competition, and 
there is no reason or rationale to apply the theory of tying one 
product with another in the computer world; as Professor George Priest 
has so aptly stated. As such, the traditional tying theory, Professor 
Priest argues, may be irrelevant in this case because it simply did not 
apply to computers.
  Madam Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would pay attention to 
this and make sure that this Justice Department does not end up putting 
a damper on the innovation and technological growth that has made this 
country great.

                          ____________________