Microsoft's Laissez Faire is Actually An "Opium War"

Yan Xiaohung, vice-president of the China Intellectual Property Bureau, in response to a media interview on October 27, stated his position on Microsoft’s “black screen” anti-piracy movement [in China]. He pointed out that Microsoft should reconsidering the manner in which it addresses piracy. Out of goodwill, Mr Yan reminded Microsoft in assessing China’s particular situation, that perhaps a revised pricing of their product is acceptable. (October 28th China News Publication)

Mrs Lui Luwei, a reporter in Hong Kong, introduced the situation to Hong Kong through his blog. Microsoft’s “black screen” policy will not cause a large fuss there. This is due to the fact that corporations in Hong Kong found using pirated software have been considered liable as a criminal offense since April 2001. Any unauthorized individual commercial Microsoft software may be subject to a maximum sentence of 4 years and a penalty of HK $ 50,000 imposed on each disc.

Microsoft’s present situation has a special agenda. As early as 1998, during an interview with Fortune magazine, Bill Gates said the following:

“Let them steal our stuff if they really would like to steal. They will get hooked on the acts, then we are going to figure out ways to ask them to pay it back in the next ten years or so.” From Bill Gates’ words, we can see that Microsoft’s laissez faire policy is deliberately intended, which is comparable to a calculated “Opium War.” During those ten years Microsoft first let the people have free products that lead to an addiction. Then they collect the fishing net at just the right time and you cannot escape and fight back! In a response to a featured interview on the monopoly of Microsoft in China, the senior vice-president of Microsoft and director of Microsoft (China) Incorporation, Mr. Zhang Yaqing said, “ the percentage of copyrighted products in the market is low due to the majority of Microsoft’s non-copyrighted, meaning that a Microsoft monopoly does not exist.” In fact this is a sly argument. Microsoft’s monopoly is continuously being established through the popularity of its “free” pirated software over the last ten years. It lies upon is its enormous capital and capabilities in research technologies—Microsoft had the power to launch a free (on-the-surface) ten years. Other smaller-scale companies would not be its competitors at all. The consequence is that, not only does Microsoft sit on an unchallenged monopoly throne, but it can accuse users of violating intellectual property rights anytime. In one instance it can conquer the high scale of both moral and economic sense! During these ten years, through deliberately disregarding pirated software, Microsoft has borrowed a weapon to use against a number of software companies to curb their chances of existence and development. At present, seeing that the net is expanding enough to keep the fish fat, Microsoft is beginning to reap its bountiful harvest in an all-rounded web of nets under the pretext of guarding intellectual property.

It has been the golden age for the development of computers and internet users in China during the past decade. By June 4, 1998, the number internet users in China had climbed to one million. In February 2008, the number of internet users had surpassed those of the United States, over 220 million, ranking China as the No. 1 largest nation in the internet world. This is the best time for Microsoft to draw the fishnet back, because the loyal computer and internet customers are already hooked on the software’s operating system. Even a higher cost will not deter them from the habit.

Before and after the announcement of anti-piracy laws in Hong Kong in 2001, there had been heated discussion. Opponents thought that copyrighted software was unaffordable for many and increased the cost of production in small to medium businesses. Proponents thought that widespread pirated software is the exact cause of the obstruction of other software companies who wanted to expand their markets and were unable to compete with the huge monopolized market. The execution of the law is good news to those software companies with a vision. This provides the market with lower cost copyright software products to satisfy the users’ needs. Apparently, those proponents are too optimistic. Presently, there haven’t seem to have been any software companies to have successfully entered the market in Hong Kong.

I am not advocating that piracy is reasonable. But the Microsoft “black screen” incident reveals that the issue is far more complicated than simply protecting intellectual property rights. Like the vice-president of China Intellectual Property Bureau, Zhang Qing, remarked in regards to intellectual property protection in April, some international enterprises “fill the tank with water to raise fish, and then draw the net when the fish have grown large.” If there are not some effective counter-measures, the destructive consequences will drag us into a double dilemma of market and ethics.