By Hesh Wiener
Only time will tell whether the agreement reached in Judge Federal Judge Allen G Schwartz’s courtroom by IBM Corp and the Justice Department to void the 1956 Antitrust Consent Decree is equitable in the broadest sense (CI No 2,951). It appears to be, and we earnestly hope it turns out that way in the long run. We are not as pleased by the political atmosphere in which it was made, a point of view that appears not so much in the details of the proceedings but in their overall tone and scope, in what was not put forth as much as in what became prominent. Practices of IBM and many others that would, during the first two thirds of this century, have engendered government scrutiny, public ire and possibly enforcement proceedings have been tolerated and at times even encouraged by a body politic more concerned with US economic power abroad than its equity at home.
Disparities between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots that once might have brought pangs of grief to a sensitive public conscience are today viewed as a necessary stimulus to individual and corporate achievement and a concomitant of freedom. The American public’s displeasure with an IBM chafing under the yoke of antitrust laws, expressed more visibly in the electoral process than in the press or individual expression, undoubtedly contributed to the judicial climate under which IBM was released from its bonds. IBM is not being excused from the Consent Decree because the Decree has served its purpose, although that is what a transcript of the court proceedings – and a substantial body of statistical and anecdotal evidence – seem to reveal. We doubt that IBM will become any more nimble now that the scope of the Consent Decree has been so markedly reduced and the remainder of its power given a definite termination. IBM is more constrained by factors other than the Decree – the persistence of legacy software, for instance, and the shift of value from hardware to software and telecommunications – than it is by the rules it has been obliged to follow since 1956.
Test the mettle
If anything, the relaxation of antitrust policy in the US, of which the end of the 1952 IBM case is not even a very good example, will in general accelerate the demise of older and more established enterprises, augment the rise of new suppliers and most generously reward not the most inventive competitors but the most vicious. If the antitrust pendulum has swung too far toward the tolerance of undesirable business conduct, as we believe it has, it will one day swing back. In the meantime, it will test the mettle of every American as the wheel of fortune turns not only more rapidly, but with shuddering eccentricities that will throw many of us off paths we assumed were wise, worthwhile and secure. Before long, but probably not until its current leaders have moved on, IBM may find itself back in the courts arguing about antitrust. But next time, we expect, it will be as a plaintiff rather than a defendant, and it will be looking for help and sympathy from the Justice Department with which it spent more than half this century doing battle. IBM’s most prominent potential adversaries are Microsoft Corp and Intel Corp. But the rogue states being established in the communications business pose comparable threats to IBM’s future success.
From Infoperspectives, August 1996, Copyright (C) 1996 Technology News of America Co Inc
