Those adjudicating the seemingly endless antitrust case against Microsoft have had plenty to consider in the various charges, countercharges, rulings, and settlements. Those who must rule on the case, and those writing about it, now have more on their plate because some observers see this as a women’s issue. And these are more than casual observers.

Jennifer C. Braceras is the John M. Olin Fellow in Law at Harvard Law School and Senior Fellow for Legal Policy at the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to research on issues of interest to women. Nancy M. Pfotenhauer, an economist, is president and CEO of the IWF.

Braceras and Pfotenhauer have authored Meddling with Microsoft: When Competitors Can’t Win in the Market, They Play in the Courts—And Women Lose. This IWF paper charts the Microsoft case in impressive detail but also provides what the legal wrangling has missed: why this case matters to women.

“The reason lies in the defining characteristic of the computer industry: innovation,” say the authors. “Technological innovation enables workers—particularly women—to better balance the competing pressures of work and family life. Two decades ago, a working woman who gave birth to a child faced some very stark choices: Either leave work to stay home with the child or return to work full-time, entrusting the care of the child to others. Part-time work was rare. Working from home or telecommuting was virtually unheard of.”

Today, as the authors note, technology has altered the landscape.

“Technology has allowed some parents to work full-time from their homes. And it has provided the incentive for many employers to allow employees to work part-time in the office, knowing that if the work cannot be finished on the job, technology can assist workers to finish certain tasks from home. Technology has also made it possible for many working parents to form their own home-based businesses or join pre-existing home-based companies.”

The authors make a strong case that, by introducing more and better software at lower prices, Microsoft has made an enormous contribution to the lives of working parents over the last two decades. Unfortunately, the ongoing litigation will have a chilling effect on such innovation and, therefore, will be harmful to women.

“The prospect of endless legal wrangling,” say the authors, “might dissuade Microsoft and other technological entrepreneurs in the future from taking the risks inherent in creating new products for consumers. That would harm all consumers, and especially women, for whom technology is increasingly essential.”

The Microsoft case sends the message that success derived from innovation will meet with punishment from the government, which has more pressing issues such as terrorism.

Braceras and Pfotenhauer conclude that competition and the interests of working women would be better served by the proposed settlement of November 2001 than by the scheme of the nine states plus the District of Columbia that dissented.

As that case drags on, it will be interesting to see if partisans of the dissenting states produce a similar paper explaining how the case against Microsoft will help women be more productive and independent. To mix a metaphor, the ball is in their court.

Sally Pipes is the President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute, a California-based think tank. She can be reached via email at spipes@pacificresearch.org.