By Arun Pradhan
If we are to believe self-proclaimed "technology gurus", we have entered a realm where people swim in a sea of free information, interactive entertainment that is better than life and immediate communication with anyone, anywhere at anytime.
The internet is the international network of interlinked computers that use particular conventions for their communication. The worldwide web exists on the internet and allows users to access information via hypertext documents that contain links to other documents.
Terms like "web revolution" reflect the hype, not just from mainstream marketing, but also from progressive activists who highlight its anarchic nature, anti-authoritarian roots, accessibility and potential to disseminate alternative information. This has even led some activists to propose "internet rallies" rather than public mobilisations for social change.
The internet is inherently decentralised, based on many host computers, or servers, throughout the world. This has made censorship difficult and allowed the internet to function on a semi-democratic basis, though limited to those who can afford a computer, modem and set-up costs, or have access to them.
Progressive forces can use the web to network and agitate. However, its contents still reflect the real world, so reactionary ideas, meaningless distractions and pornography account for huge chunks of this sea of information.
Another reality check is provided by the story of Microsoft's Bill Gates' attempts to control the internet.
The US Justice Department is probing Microsoft practices. Under examination are web browsers (programs needed to view the web) and their relationship to operating systems (essential to run and manage software on computers).
Microsoft's Internet Explorer and its rival Netscape Navigator are the two web browsers with a significant market share. Microsoft's Windows has about 90% of the operating system market.
The question is: should Microsoft be allowed to force computer manufacturers to install Internet Explorer if they want to license Windows 95? The probe will assess whether linking a competitive product to an established monopolised product infringes US antitrust laws.
When rip-offs pay off
The probe merely points to the tip of an iceberg that is Microsoft's cut-throat history. In the early 1980s, Microsoft bought MS-DOS and adopted this as its main operating system. A wave of IBM clones soon followed suit. MS-DOS evolved into Windows, which mimicked the successful Apple Macintosh graphical user interface.
Getting in on the ground floor of an explosion in home computers meant that Microsoft soon had control of the foundations — the operating systems — of the world's personal computers. Microsoft programmers could define the "playing field" of all PC software.
Microsoft regularly changes the playing field to undermine rivals' products. It poaches rivals' staff, buys opposition corporations and continues to copy existing products. The company's antics fill a multitude of anti-Microsoft web sites, such as making "donations" to universities, which are then encouraged to use and teach Microsoft software.
With its monopoly of existing products and its immense wealth, Microsoft will not stop until it has a monopoly on web browsers. This would mean that Microsoft would own a crucial part of the delivery mechanism for getting data from the internet.
While Microsoft is still battling Netscape, consumers gain from advances in programs and can even get Internet Explorer (and now Netscape) for free. Once a monopoly is established, however, users will be held to the whim of Microsoft.
Campaigners on the web have focused on extending the US government's probe, and calling for restrictions on Microsoft's growing empire. Many sites advocate consumer boycotts, and outspoken US consumer advocate Ralph Nader is spearheading a campaign to initiate a European probe into Microsoft and stop its mergers and acquisitions.
One bad apple?
The title of one mainstream article, "Making Microsoft safe for capitalism", reflects an idea that is shared by many Microsoft critics. These people believe that Microsoft is an anomaly, even an evil in a capitalism which encourages creativity and healthy competition. They concentrate on Microsoft's lack of ethics, while competitors like Apple can do no wrong.
In truth, Microsoft's only crime is to be extremely effective capitalists.
Microsoft is an example of how capitalists' pursuit of mega-profits runs counter to human needs and development.
It is difficult even to imagine how many basic human needs could be met using this one company's profits each year.
Microsoft rides the wave of someone else's innovations, buys into an area and watches its rivals, in no position to challenge Microsoft, go under. Whatever drive for innovation might have existed is superseded by the need to squeeze more money from the now captive market.
This is nothing new: Microsoft is simply doing in the realm of computers what McDonald's has done in fast foods, CNN in television and Murdoch in the print media.
Of course, the "good guys" do the same thing when given the opportunity. The desktop concept, which Microsoft is thought to have copied from Apple, was copied by Apple from an earlier computer by Xerox. Claims by capitalist commentators of foul and unethical practices by Microsoft are akin to supporters of war complaining that one army is shooting people.
We should be alarmed by the monopolisation taking place on the web. But let's put it in context as just one example of how the capitalist system is founded on the ownership of enormous wealth and control by a minority at the expense of everyone else.
References and interesting sites: <http://cyberjournal.org/index.html>, <http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html><http://nsd.k12.mi.us:8000/Bill_Gates.html>, <http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=3Dantims&list>, <http://users.aol.com/machcu/amsa.html>.