I linked this article earlier. The author (in my opinion) is misguided, blind, or ignorant and perhaps all three. Rather I think Microsoft might fit an example of what Ron Paul describes as soft fascism. In almost all cases where Microsoft has gained a technical advantage, innovation in that same area immediately stopped and progress only returned when a worthy competitor showed up. A couple of quick examples. When MS DOS faced competition from DR DOSS in the mid 80's, Microsoft stepped up development of DOS as well as offered fake warnings to users when DR DOSS was detected. When Netscape was on the verge of making Operating Systems irrelevant, IE was created and offered for free. Later, in the past couple of years, Firefox (Netscape's Open Source descendant) has forced Microsoft to continue to develop the stagnating IE. Windows itself was not a result of a desire to innovate or progress in OS design as much as it was a response to the Macintosh OS and the clear need to keep up with the competition. To this day it continues to lag behind and lack the bold design and progress exhibited by Apple with the various versions of OS X. And of course it lacks the advantage of Open Source development used comprehensively by Gnu/Linux. The point here is that Microsoft's monopoly was not gained so much by being attentive to the needs of customers and the market or bold innovation and progress as much as it was by paranoid and anti-competitive behavior.
How has government aided Microsoft? First off there's copyright law. If the US government would have stuck to the ideals of the constitution and considered copyright as a means for creating content and not a means for creating wealth, the term of copyright would not have been extended endlessly to the ridicules time period it is today. Just think if the original term defined in 1790 of 14 years with another 14 year extension were implemented still today for computer software. The early version of Windows would be coming due in another ten years or so. When this happened, binary versions of the software could be exchanged at will. And even if the source code were never released, dis-assemblers could be used to get a good idea of the design and this could be re-implemented fairly quickly. Microsoft might be facing competition from itself in the form of it's OS being given new life by coming off copyright. Other companies could form Open Source projects or their own systems based on the dis-assembled pieces. Of course, the same thing would be happening to Microsoft Office applications as well.
Even if copyright law remained messed up as it does today, the US government could have done more to prevent anti-competitive behavior than what it did. When Bush was elected in 2000, Microsoft was clearly let off the hook and the most lenient solution to the offenses were implemented. One look at the way the EU has been treating the company reveals some substance to this charge.
But the article did cause me to think about good examples of capitalism. My first thoughts were of the first half of the 20th century. Ford is thought of as the father of mass production. How about Boeing, McDonald Aircraft and Hugh's Aircraft? More modern examples: Apple for one. Although I am at times a bit frustrated by their attitude towards Open Source (I just wish they were totally committed to the movement), they excel in many areas. Design, marketing, software, it's all good stuff that customers really like. And they do take risks and innovate. IBM might also be a good example. They were able to adjust and respond to competition in an exemplary way and are now champions of Open Source software although they also could be charged with anti-competitive behavior at some points in their history. Some good candidates in the food industry, how about McDonald's Hamburger chain? I hesitate to use Pharmaceutical companies because they could also be examples of soft fascism due to collusion with the FDA, NIH and perhaps other government agencies. Can you think of any other good examples of capitalism?
