|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Dear Realtraders,
A lot of people at work and elsewhere have asked my opinion of Microsoft and
this lawsuit brought by the government (some of which I have shared already)
since I have been a computer junkie since about the age of twelve (sixteen years
ago) when I started programming.
I tell people that Microsoft makes some incredible products - I love MS Excel, I
love MS Word, Internet Explorer is a good web browser (save for all the security
holes). As a part-time programmer, I have been VERY impressed with the Visual
Studio products, including Visual Basic 5.0 and better. Programming, in my
opinion, has never been easier - they've done a great job. Bravo!
Nonetheless, let's admit a few things here - while Microsoft makes some very
good products, they engage in so many dirty tricks that G. Gordon Liddy deserves
an honorary place on their board of directors. What's so funny, to hear the MS
defenses from people in this discussion, is that few defenders have mentioned
that every contention made in Judge Jackson's finding of fact comes from
Microsoft's own documents. These aren't baseless allegations cooked up out of
thin air, they are supported by key testimony, and materials from Microsoft's
own executives, developed by someone with a far better understanding of the law
than Microsoft.
And for the Objectivist Center For The Moral Defense of Capitalism and their
lame defense of Microsoft- give me a break. If you wrapped a pile of crap in a
dollar bill, the Center For The Moral Defense of Capitalism would immediately
rise to claim that it doesn't stink. They're view on this whole affair is a
demonstration of the myopic view of the world that they claim to "objectively"
understand.
Here are a few key quotes from their defense.
* "No one has a right to buy whatever he wishes; he only has the right to buy
what others choose to sell to him." (Does that mean that Black Americans in the
Deep South in the 1950s didn't have the right to buy services from restaurants
run by whites who refused to sit them?)
* "As a private corporation, Microsoft has no power to force anyone." (Tell that
to any PC maker who didn't bow to Microsoft's terms and had their Windows
license put in jeopardy. What would they sell to the consumer market - UNIX
boxes? CPM machines? In the same vein, how about a pharmaceutical firm that
decides to jack up the cost of its patented drug so that it is out of the
financial reach of many patients who must have that drug to live? I guess such a
corporation can't FORCE that patient to choose a life of poverty over death, but
hey, they're trying!)
* "Consider what [the principals behind Judge Jackson's findings] would mean. It
would mean that no company can ever gain any advantage from the success it has
earned." (No it doesn't - it means that a company can't transgress the
boundaries of fair and honest business practices to take UNFAIR advantage of its
competition.)
* "Morally, no one has the right to employ government force to eliminate
products he doesn't like." (This statement is so goofy it hardly needs a
rejoinder. I don't think Judge Jackson or the Goverment dislikes Microsoft
Windows. It's a question of illegal behavior.)
* In response to the myriad of lawsuits waged against Microsoft, the Objectivist
response is: "This is another example of the bias against successful
businesses." (In other words, because Microsoft makes loads of money, it is
always right. Check out
http://www.bluemountainarts.com/home/ImportantNotice.html for a detailed account
of their lawsuit against Microsoft. Very disturbing stuff from the most heavily
visited e-commerce on the Internet, more so than MSN or Microsoft.com - so who
is guilty of envying success in this case?)
As I have stated on other occasions, I believe that the Objectivist "philosophy"
is the only thing that stands between its proponents (and I won't mention any
names but you know who you are) and a thoughtful, comprehensive understanding of
how the world really works.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Strupp
Chicago, IL
|