By Sen. Malcolm Wallop (ret.) & George C. Landrith

For over five years, the federal government and a number of state attorneys general have been attacking Microsoft under the guise of antitrust enforcement. However, the the centerpiece of the government's case against Microsoft was overturned by a federal appeals court. The federal appeals court did not stop at simply reversing the lower court's decision, it also openly criticized the lower court's obvious bias and gross judicial misconduct. And just the other day the Supreme Court refused without comment to overturn or reverse the decision of the federal appeals court.

After all of this, one would expect the state attorneys general who have been suing Microsoft to let the matter drop. But regardless how reasonable it may be to move on, some diehards simply cannot let go. So, here they go again!

Six state attorneys general recently sent a letter to Microsoft -- which was drafted by a lobbyist for Microsoft's competitors -- expressing antitrust concerns about the upcoming release of the Windows XP operating system. It now seems that we will be treated to the ridiculous spectacle of Microsoft's competitors whining that upgrading, updating, or improving software is a violation of antitrust law. They will repeat the same worn out claims they've made for years in the federal court system and that were resoundingly dismissed on appeal.

Imagine what would have happened if buggy manufacturers used harassing antitrust litigation to stop Henry Ford from producing automobiles that virtually everyone could use and afford. Imagine what would have happened if candle makers colluded with state attorneys general to stop Thomas Edison and his light bulb on grounds that the lighting improvements he invented violated antitrust law. Imagine if each time an automaker made its cars more spacious, powerful, comfortable, or economical, its competitors got together and convinced a bunch of greedy state officials that they should file lawsuits to stop the innovation and pad their pockets at the same time.

If you can imagine such foolishness, you've got a glimpse into the world of Microsoft's competitors who use the law to stop innovation and help themselves. This is no different than an olympic sprinter trying to outfit his competitors in concrete running shoes so that he has a better chance of winning. This is not competition. It is cheating. And while it may hurt Microsoft, the most grievous harm is done to consumers.

You might ask how consumers could be hurt by a bunch of whining competitors. Just look at what the government attorneys were once promoting as a solution to the Microsoft case. Government attorneys asked the court to force Microsoft to charge for its free web browser, Internet Explorer, and its free e-mail program, Outlook Express. It was never explained how consumers would be benefited by having to pay for software that had previously been free.

Perhaps even more important is the fact that consumers should be the ones to determine which products they will use and how much they are willing to pay for them. We do not need or want the government to make these choices for us.

The other cost we all bear is reflected in the huge losses in the stock markets beginning back in 1999 when the government made clear its goal to destroy Microsoft. At the time, some even called it the "Reno Recession" in honor of Janet Reno's role as the US Attorney General who oversaw the federal government's siege of Microsoft.

But it wasn't just Microsoft's stock values that dropped. Just about everybody took a hit. As a result, billions and billions of dollars have been lost. Those who lost include: seniors preparing to retire, families with students preparing to go to college, families saving for a home, entrepreneurs building a business, and single mothers saving for their and their children's future. Thanks to big government antitrust zealotry, we have all seen resources shrink and opportunities fade.

After more than five years of investigation and litigation, and after a strong rebuke by the federal appeals court, it is time to close this war on innovation and success. Average everyday Americans have paid a high enough price for this foolishness. Perhaps when everything looked so bright, we vainly imagined we had the luxury of engaging in perpetual counter-productive litigation. But, we no longer have that luxury. With the economy slipping, we must get back to the work of building a stronger more secure economy. That can't happen if competitors view the government's attorneys as a key part of their business plan.

###

Malcolm Wallop is a former Republican U.S. Senator from Wyoming who served 16 years on the Finance Committee. He is currently chairman of Frontiers of Freedom, a private property rights organization In Arlington, Virginia.