Well, the Government is after Bill Gates again. It seems that Microsoft has violated a 1995 consent decree by forcing PC makers to feature its Internet Explorer web browser over the products of rival Netscape Communications. That is, to license Windows 95, the PC companies must bundle in Internet Explorer.

Microsoft argues that Internet Explorer is part of the Windows 95 operating system. Others disagree. As such, the courts will have to work out whether or not Internet Explorer is legitimately part of Windows 95, or whether Bill is unfairly influencing the market.

Might I propose a workaround??

All the oppressed PC manufacturers can include a little instruction card, courtesy of Netscape, saying that Netscape Navigator can be downloaded (free of charge!) using Internet Explorer.

Heck, they can even put in a macro to do this automatically, if they like.

So, what's the deal??

Welcome to the 90's. These days, it's better to whine and complain than to actually solve a problem. While you're at it, throw in a dose of "Hate the rich.." and you're pretty close to figuring out this sad state of affairs.

Why isn't Qualcomm (publishers of Eudora) crying that Netscape includes an e-mail client for free, and Internet Explorer's e-mail client is not only free, but it's really part of Windows 95?

Maybe Qualcomm is made of stronger stuff.

Why doesn't Ipswitch, Inc. complain that too many people are using the free version of its FTP client, and the Web is conspiring to produce an entire generation of users who don't even know the advantages of FTP versus HTTP?

Why, indeed! Because Qualcomm, Ipswitch, and hundreds of other companies are competing in the marketplace, with superior products and hard work, and don't need to run to Uncle Sugar, when things get tough.

One more thing. What IF Microsoft is a monopoly? Why is that necessarily bad? Would Janet Reno prefer that there were 25 incompatible operating systems extant, with dozens of non-standard office suite software packages?

Does she want to return to an era when it cost thousands, rather than hundreds of dollars to outfit a small business with essential applications software?

Shouldn't Bill reap any rewards?

And for those members of the press corps who seriously suggested that Gates could pay off the budget deficit--Get a grip!!