Microsoft

[E Lea]

I thought Jim Fawcette's editorial was interesting. He wrote off many years
of predation, anti-competitive actions and out-and-out law breaking with
the phrase "Microsoft has fallen on the sword of its own massive hubris."
This after saying that his entire column was NOT an apology for MS. Sorry,
Jim. That's like calling someone a truly offensive name and then saying "no
offense" as if to excuse yourself.

If you have spent much of Microsoft's corporate life watching them purposely
destroying other companies' products, people and ideas then it would be a
lot easier to see the government's case. If you had either known or been
one of their victims hearing the MS acquisition team saying "Take this offer
or be ready to take us to court" only to see them steal the technology you
had in good faith shared in order to sell it, then give away your product
for long enough to put you out of business (thus making sure you could not
pursue them in court), then you would have an easier time seeing the case
against MS.

Sure, the infractions PROVEN in front of the judge were not ALL as heinous
as others of which they are guilty. But many of them are. Just because the
victim is not a poor defenseless under $1 million company, the crime is still
the same. Just because the crime is committed by someone in "the new economy"
that makes it no less a crime. If GM were to do some of the things MS has
done publishers like you would be crying for blood.

Forgive those of us in the consuming public if we don't shed tears for the
winners in a rigged game who got caught. We also don't cry for the guy who
stuck up a 7-11 and he only effected a few people with his crime. Am I saying
that white collar crime is as bad as violent crime? No. But both are criminal.
Each has a punishment attached (the cost of doing business?) and each criminal
should pay that cost.

[GPL]

Gee, this piece by E Lea makes a near-perfect analogy to the recent impeachment
on the Hill.

Simply replace the words "Microsoft" with "Bill Clinton" and "anti-competitive
actions" with "treason, perjury, murder, sexual harrassment, illegal campaign
funds solicitation, obstruction of justice, and invasion of privacy," and
PRESTO! we have a great editorial on the behavior of the very administration
that is investigating Microsoft.

Kinda makes you scratch your head, doesn't it? But then again, it doesn't.

Microsoft is in court because Microsoft (apparently) behaved in a manner
unbecoming a software company (how dare they make more money than Bill Clinton
can illegally seduce out of China!) And stealing the small guys technology
(if this indeed happened) makes my blood boil.

But for certain, the actions chosen to crucify Microsoft over are, to me,
ridiculous. I agree with Jim Fawcette on most counts. The browser charge,
for instance: What business does the government have telling Microsoft,
a private entity, how they can or cannot package a software product? As
Fawcette stated, the industry concensus is that more good than bad has become
of it. No one has a right to have Windows as their OS. Buy another and
PRESTO! no evil IE.

When Bill Clinton and his fellow puppets learn to get their hands out of
their constituent's, er, POCKETS, and back to serving their constituent's
needs, we'll have an honest trial, not, as Jim Fawcette correctly asserts,
a CIRCUS.





"E Lea" <elea@euronet.nl> wrote:
>
>I thought Jim Fawcette's editorial was interesting. He wrote off many years
>of predation, anti-competitive actions and out-and-out law breaking with
>the phrase "Microsoft has fallen on the sword of its own massive hubris."
>This after saying that his entire column was NOT an apology for MS. Sorry,
>Jim. That's like calling someone a truly offensive name and then saying
"no
>offense" as if to excuse yourself.
>
>If you have spent much of Microsoft's corporate life watching them purposely
>destroying other companies' products, people and ideas then it would be
a
>lot easier to see the government's case. If you had either known or been
>one of their victims hearing the MS acquisition team saying "Take this offer
>or be ready to take us to court" only to see them steal the technology you
>had in good faith shared in order to sell it, then give away your product
>for long enough to put you out of business (thus making sure you could not
>pursue them in court), then you would have an easier time seeing the case
>against MS.
>
>Sure, the infractions PROVEN in front of the judge were not ALL as heinous
>as others of which they are guilty. But many of them are. Just because the
>victim is not a poor defenseless under $1 million company, the crime is
still
>the same. Just because the crime is committed by someone in "the new economy"
>that makes it no less a crime. If GM were to do some of the things MS has
>done publishers like you would be crying for blood.
>
>Forgive those of us in the consuming public if we don't shed tears for the
>winners in a rigged game who got caught. We also don't cry for the guy who
>stuck up a 7-11 and he only effected a few people with his crime. Am I saying
>that white collar crime is as bad as violent crime? No. But both are criminal.
>Each has a punishment attached (the cost of doing business?) and each criminal
>should pay that cost.