|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Mike,
For the record, I've been involved with the computers since 1974 when I took
my first computer course in Fortran. Seeing that you are about 28, that
means I've been working with computers and in the computer industry longer
than you have been alive <g>. I've worked as an IBM mainframe system
programmer writing OS level utilities, modifications, installing the OS and
debugging errors in program code, I've worked as a programming consultant,
as a pre/post sales system engineer for many companies and finally, I've
been working in software sales for the last few years. I've also played
around with writing PC code using Visual Basic now and then. Having worked
for and with a wide variety of companies I can tell you first hand that I
have seen or heard of business decisions and practices that make the
accusations against MS look like child play.
This is not meant as a flame, but you simply do not have enough real-world
experience. I've made specific comments in reply below.
JW
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of mike
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 6:09 PM
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: My Final Words On Microsoft Ruling
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.
[JW] In your opinion - which again, is based on your limited world and
computer industry experience.
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?)
[JW] 1. That's a pretty inane example with no relevancy to a discussion
about the computer industry. We are not talking about MS violating basic
civil rights, unless of course, like some people, you believe that there is
some statement in the Constitution about Operating Systems.
[JW] 2. The quote as written is absolutely true. A business offers a
product for sale at a certain price. But the company does NOT have to sell
it to you, even if you have the money. A business can refuse to accept your
transaction for any reason or even no reason, as long as it is not violating
any laws. Of course, refusing to sell your product to large numbers of
people is not a recipe for success.
* "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!)
[JW] MS does NOT have the LEGAL power to force anyone to do anything.
Everyone has the choice to not take a particular action, in effect doing
nothing. Of course, that action MAY affect their business and they would
then have to accept the consequences. Because MS has become the de facto
standard (based on business and consumer choice), they have power. MS tried
to use its power to grow and protect its businesses. Perhaps the degree
they tried to do so might have been excessive in some instances, perhaps
not. Often the interpretation of excessiveness is based on where you are on
the food chain -at the bottom or on top <g>.
[JW] Here's a business analogy that might be as questionable as the case
against MS. Take a company like Wal-Mart which demands lower wholesale
prices than anyone else gets (along with other services) from their
suppliers because they buy in large volume. Wal-Mart can demand not only
lower pricing, but also that the suppliers stock & maintain their shelves,
deliver the product at a very specific time or else pay a penalty and so on.
The supplier has the right to "agree" to provide the pricing and services
that Wal-Mart demands or they can walk and look for someone else to sell to.
ISN'T this strong-arming? Is this leverage due to volume buying to be
proscribed because it FORCES the supplier to do something that it may not
want to do to keep Wal-Mart's business? And if the supplier "agrees" to
accept the terms of the deal, is the profit margin large enough for them to
cover all the expenses associated with the deal or do they hope to make up
their loss from someone else in the name of building brand or name
recognition as a Wal-Mart supplier? If the supplier has to make the
difference up from someone else, then they have to charge other, smaller
companies more which means consumers will pay more. Aren't smaller
businesses being hurt by higher wholesale prices and perhaps less
hand-holding or services because they are not in the big leagues? Aren't
consumers that then patronize smaller stores being hurt as well? Must
everyone buy only from the largest stores if they want the best prices?
Should Wal-Mart be enjoined from "heavy-handed business practices"
(negotiations)?
[JW] But there certainly is evidence that MS may have been a bit
heavy-handed in some of it's business dealings. But again, is this any
different from what a Wal-Mart, Costco or whatever does? I have seen many
instances of these types of actions (and attempted actions) over my years in
business, most just haven't become known to the general public. The strong,
smart, biggest, wealthiest, etc. always comes out on top. Not because they
are nice guys, but because they use their power to their advantage. It's
simply the nature of the human existence. You can be as idealistic as you
want and say the world shouldn't be that way, but the facts are that this IS
the way the world operates.
* "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.)
[JW] Wrong again. As long as MS broke no criminal laws, then it can use
it's size, market share and power as it chooses with the proviso that they
may well anger their buyers if they press too hard. But the only reason
that MS is being persecuted now is because of these archaic monopoly laws.
I have seen some writings that say that maybe a monopoly might not be such a
bad idea in certain instances. Of course, if you accept this statement,
then you also probably have to regulate the monopoly to keep it under
control. But anytime government regulates something, it usually results in
higher prices and less innovation (just look at AT&T up to the time it was
broken up in the early '80's). But OTOH, deregulation often gives too much
choice. IMO, too much choice isn't any better than no choice.
[JW] There really isn't any such animal as "fair and honest" business
practices. There are only legal and illegal business practices. Whatever
you're sense of morality and fairness is makes no difference. BG doesn't
have to come to you and ask if in your opinion, a practice is fair or not.
EVERY company that I have ever worked for has tried in some way or another
to gain advantage over rivals and competitors, by either fair or unfair
means. Some were more overt than others and some got caught being too
aggressive and violating criminal laws. But as long as no laws are broken,
businesses can try to gain advantage any way they can (or afford to <g>)
with impunity.
* "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.)
[JW] MS didn't break any existing criminal laws. They are not being charge
under criminal statues but under questionable monopoly law. In fact
competitors are doing exactly what I have been commenting on. Using every
means possible to stifle a winning competitor and take them out of the
picture. The competitors are not wrong for doing so. The problem is that
the sorry excuse for a DOJ, under Janet (WACO) Reno and Joel (bleeding heart
liberal) Klein, that listened to them.
* 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?)
[JW] This only comes back to the original statement up above about selling
to others. MS DOES NOT legally have to provide a venue for any other
company or service if it chooses not to. Unless and until MS is deemed a
public utility, they can make any decision (again within legal bounds) that
they choose for which they feel is in their best interest to make. The
government can't dictate who you can sell products to (again as long as you
stay within what is legal and don't violate anyone's civil rights) but the
public can express its disagreement or dissatisfaction with a company's
business practices by not buying their services or products. If you don't
like what BG or MS is doing, then buy Linux or something and shut up. No,
you won't get the large choice of applications that you have under Windows,
but that is the price you have to pay for going with something other than
the mainstream provider.
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.
[JW] AND THAT IS YOUR FUNNIEST STATEMENT <ROFLOL>! Imagine, someone only
28 years old with such clarity of vision, telling everyone else how the
world really works (or is that supposed to work). You should definitely run
for public office. Oh, to be 28 again <g>...
[JW} We've all beaten this horse into a stupor, so let's agree to disagree
and let whatever events are slated to happen, happen without further
commentary. OK?
Sincerely,
Michael E. Strupp
Chicago, IL
|