CHALLENGING BILL

First column of the year, and it's about Microsoft Corp.Anything to keep those checks from Bill Gates rolling in.

Didn't you know that I'm on the payroll of the Great Satan ofsoftware? Lots of faithful readers figured it out long ago. Firstthere was my frequent disparagement of Apple Computer Inc. Thencame my recent column mocking the Justice Department campaign tostop Microsoft from melding its Internet browser with its Windowsoperating system. What did I have to go and say that for? Thee-mails are still coming in, from as far away as Moscow.

Yes, that Moscow. And most readers think I'm corrupt or crazy.Plainly some clarifications are in order.But not just from me. Some of your messages were patentlygoofy. Here's one of my favorites, from a Boston-area employee ofthe telecommunications firm GTE Internetworking: "Microsoft shouldbe forced to charge for IE or to stop development of the product."IE is Internet Explorer, Microsoft's browser.This is where unrestrained Microsoft hatred gets you. Thisperson would force us to pay for an excellent product that nowcosts nothing. Yes, that would give rival Netscape CommunicationsCorp. a better chance of surviving the browser wars, but considerthe cost.Say Microsoft charges $20 for a browser, preinstalled on PCs.The manufacturers would pay, because customers want the product.Firms would just pass the extra fee on to buyers. And Microsoft'sbillionaires would end up with an extra billion bucks. It wouldamount to a government-sanctioned protection racket -- pay off BigBill, and he'll let Netscape live. I'm from Chicago, but this isridiculous.Then again, we could just ban Internet Explorer, a product with40 percent of the market. But shouldn't we outlaw Microsoftproducts that really dominate their markets? Why not ban itsbest-selling word processor, or Encarta, the world's most popularencyclopedia? Why not MS-DOS or Windows 95?Not too likely. But modify this idea a bit, and you've got asuggestion that must be taken seriously. Instead of banningMicrosoft's most popular products, some of you want to see themplaced under new management. You think the Justice Departmentshould break up Microsoft, just as it did with Rockefeller'sStandard Oil trust or the old Bell System.Here's the theory: Microsoft's operating systems -- Windows andMS-DOS -- are in effect the lingua franca of personal computersworldwide. Microsoft is using this dominance to take over themarket for application programs, like browsers, word processors,and so on. Even if Microsoft has earned its position honestly, thefirm still exerts too much control over the computer business, andthreatens the survival of competing firms. So for the public good,Microsoft should be divided into at least two separate firms -- onethat makes operating systems, another to make applications.It's an interesting theory, backed by people ranging from RalphNader to Bob Dole. But I don't buy it. It's based on the assumptionthat Microsoft's current power in the computer industry is beyondthe reach of shrewd, tough competitors. Exactly 10 years ago,people were making the same argument about IBM Corp.The Reagan Justice Department had given up on an antitrust caseagainst that company, and the industry's punditti moaned that IBM'sdominance of computing was thus ensured.Gates knew better. With shrewdness and guile, he demolished theIBM empire. And in due course, new software products will comealong to challenge the power of Windows. I plan to write about somepotential challengers in the year to come, so stay tuned.I will grant my critics one point. Microsoft is fighting thebrowser wars too hard for its own good. It would be well advised tocut a deal with Justice and move on. As my mailbag proves,Microsoft's nasty attitude is creating a reservoir of ill willamong computer users.These folks usually look askance at government intervention.But they're just about ready to make an exception for Mr. Gates andurge the government to tear his firm to pieces.I don't want Justice to humble Microsoft. I want one of youguys to do it, by making the next great breakthrough in softwaredesign. Do this, and I'll gladly sing your praises, even if itmeans no more payoffs from Seattle.