Big business, bad business

When I watch my nieces and nephews, I am worried about how they ascribe value to themselves. For them, it's about the latest cellphone, or game console - and God forbid they arrive at school without the latest clothing label. Through all of this, I can't help but wonder when money and success became synonymous.

But it's not really surprising when you look around the world as it is now. For most people - more specifically for business - it's all about the bottom line. It seems this ascription of value has seeped down into regular society.

And if society is being influenced by the bottom line, then how will we be influenced by white-collar crime?

Big companies, principally in the information and communications technology industry, are using market dominance to crush or hinder competitor growth.

The best example of this would be Microsoft - and let's be clear, I am no Microsoft-basher - but the company doesn't exactly have a good track record. Microsoft's troubles started in around 1994 when the EU and US Justice Department made Microsoft pay a fee for excessive and stringent licensing and marketing behaviour.

From March to December 1998, the company faced various anti-competitive suits - and for those of you who don't know - it was also the year the Justice Department decided to force Microsoft to distribute Internet Explorer within the operating system, free of charge.

In 2000 and 2001, the trouble continued, with the US government bringing charges against the company for other dominant behaviour. Trying to monopolise the Web browser market, by tying its media player into Windows - an anti-trust violation.

I won't go into the rest of the trouble that the company managed to create for itself, but the list is long - and can be found here for those interested in the rest. Safe to say, the company now needs to run all its operating system builds through the Anti-trust Commission.

While it's the most prominent example, it's by no means the only one. Lesser known, but seemingly more directly sinister, is the trouble between Intel and AMD. These two companies are essentially the entire processor chip market, and it makes for an interesting and mean situation.

So what really makes me wonder - if a company is showing growth, or taking in revenue - what is the point of squishing competition, or ripping off the poor?

Candice Jones, journalist, ITWeb

In June 2005, AMD first lodged its anti-trust complaint against larger competitor Intel, claiming the company was paying distributors not to issue AMD chips. While it sounds like a Hollywood crime film, it seems to be the case.

A few months before the official lodgement in the US, the Japan Fair Trade Commission found Intel had engaged in illegal and anti-competitive activities and the Japanese arm of the company was sued.

In July 2007, the EU found Intel guilty of anti-competitive behaviour, similarly the South Korea Fair Trade Commission found the same in the East.

This behaviour is not restricted to large multinational corporates. In SA we have our own greedy, bottom line grubbing businesses. Cape-based financial services and technology company Fidentia was placed under provisional curatorship last year, by the Cape High Court.

In this scandal, almost R680 million could not be traced by investigators, part of almost R2 billion that was taken in from various investors by its asset management subsidiary, Fidentia Asset Management. Most of that money was owed to widows and orphans of deceased members of the Mineworkers Provident Fund.

So what really makes me wonder - if a company is showing growth, or taking in revenue - what is the point of squishing competition, or ripping off the poor? The biggest trouble though, is that this seems to be a growing trend, and even legal action in one country does not stop companies performing the exact same ridiculous or illegal act in another country.

So call me naive, but I used to believe in the best in everyone. Something like the examples of the horrendous transgressions I have mentioned is completely outside of my framework. My problem is that when companies can get away with these kinds of actions with simply a fine and a slap on the wrist - it sets a precedent.

This may very well affect the way everyone does business from here on out. And if my "society is influenced" theory is valid, then my family will think that being a crushing bully is absolutely acceptable.