You can’t throw a dart at a newspaper lately without hitting the word Microsoft. Not that any one of you throws darts at newspapers for sport, because that would be strange and pointless. But bearing in mind that it is impossible for massive Microsoft to lay low, this month Bill Gates seems to be particularly omnipresent.

The media has dubbed Microsoft “the software giant,” and they don’t mean the jolly green kind. Microsoft is more like Jack’s giant, stomping on rival startups and muttering, “Fee fi fo fum, I smell the blood of a Linux programmer.”

Several states (including Wisconsin) recognized this tendency toward the merciless smashing of competition and took Microsoft to court for monopolistic practices. Of course the company was found guilty. No one with a brain cell to his or her name would attempt to argue Microsoft plays well with others.

But Nov. 1, it was announced that the settlement at which Microsoft and the prosecuting states had arrived would be upheld and no additional penalties would be added. Some analysts actually called the ruling a “victory for capitalism.” Those people need a little dose of Economics 101.

Bottom line, competition is good. It is especially good for consumers, because it results in competitive pricing. In other words, the market drives the price, and Bill Gates doesn’t. If you read Gates’ response to this assertion, he will say that his total market dominance allows him to provide his products to people at a lower price than you would find in a competitive situation.

That’s funny because Windows XP costs hundreds of dollars (and sucks) while Linux is free.

Companies like Red Hat make a profit off of Linux by adding features to it and providing tech support. But even if you get your Linux operating system through Red Hat, you will still pay less than you would for Windows.

If Linux becomes more popular and grabs a substantial market share, will new versions of Windows still cost a fortune? They couldn’t. The rules of the competitive market wouldn’t allow them to.

But all of that is irrelevant now. Microsoft walked away holding its slapped wrist and promptly created a position called Federal Director of Homeland Security and appointed someone to it. Looks like Microsoft wants to be more involved in policy decisions. The company supposedly “created the position to help the government manage IT systems and ensure interoperability between them.”

Mitch Wagner from Internet Week called the move “a bid to play a larger role in advising U.S. policymakers on information-technology security issues.”

And you thought they were being power-hungry and trying to insert their own players into key political positions in order to ensure their company’s dominance. Nonsense.

This week Microsoft announced its plans for the coming year. It wants to create a low-power, low-cost little computer chip that can be placed in everything from alarm clocks and coffeemakers. Gates didn’t specify what exactly the chip would do in these devices. My guess is that with the Microsoft chips in place, your coffee maker will crash when you need it most and your alarm clock will spy on you.

So there appears to be no end in sight to the user un-friendly, competition-stifling Micro — this article has performed an illegal operation, Windows is shutting this article down, all unsaved work will be lost …

Kate MacDonald ([email protected]) is a journalism, film and economics student at UW-Milwaukee.