As a follow-on to my previous article on the EU's interference with Microsoft, today we learn that the European Commission would like to be in the business of a designing security software. They are on shaky legal footing here, and their technological footing is non-existent.
Here is an example of ad-hoc lawmaking:
Responding to expressions of concern by the company over the Commission's stance, EU competition spokesman Jonathan Todd told a briefing it was up to Microsoft, as "a near monopolist," to ensure compliance with EU antitrust rules in the new system.
I don't know a whole lot about European antitrust, but I can't imagine that "near-monopolist" is defined or even mentioned in the text of those laws. Mr. Todd is not basing his opinions on law, but of the opaque judgments of an unelected commission. He is asking Microsoft not to comply with written law, but rather to predict the judgments of that commission in the future.
Further, he postulates on what the market "should" look like:
Open competition and diversity were the best way of improving software security, he said.
"Such diversity and innovation could be at risk if Microsoft was allowed to foreclose the existing competition in computer security markets...by bundling its own security products into its dominant operating system," Todd said.
I agree that open competition, diversity and innovation are the cornerstones of the software business. But Mr. Todd's commission is proposing that Microsoft be prevented from bringing a new product to market.
That means less diversity, less competition and less innovation. The EC would like to force Microsoft to sell a less-functional and less-secure version of their software.
The last time they did this, consumers ignored it entirely. And why wouldn't they? The EC forced an inferior product on a public that never demanded it.
Mr. Todd's economic theories are speculative, vague, and unsupported by evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the EC must let the customers decide.
Consumers and technology firms are vastly smarter on this topic than a bureacracy can ever hope to be. In truth, the EC is not looking to protect competition, it is looking to protect competitors. Its intentions and methods are the exact opposite of what it claims to promote.
Comments