"It was the best of times; it was the worst of times" / RE: Off topic: New Microsoft suit [B*LLSH*T]

I would simply ask whether some digital circuits and code has really advanced us very far on the path toward rising above the human tendencies toward brutality, cruelty, selfishness and injustice:

   "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the    age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of    belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of    Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope,    it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had    nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all    going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like    the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted    on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative    degree of comparison only. "

Thus begins Charles Dickens's epic Tale of Two Cities, brought to you (where else!) on the web:

  http://www.thespark.com/sparknotes/guides/twocities/cover-nojs.html -
  http://www.thespark.com/sparknotes/guides/twocities/

(apologies for not correctly positioning the asterisk in the subject line, I'm recovering from an eye injury, and had something kinda like a "caffine-free moment" when I was typing it.)

Well, since people are volunteering to shut up about this OT thread after making their initial rebuttals, I will also do so (although if people aren't willing to defend their positions, I wonder why they advance them in the first place).

My "parting shot":

In Chris' original post, he provides a pointer to an article:

http://www.foxmarketwire.com/083000/microsoft.sml

Containing what I would assume to be the key point:

   "The majority of the cases nationwide were filed     after U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield     Jackson in Washington, D.C., ruled that the     company violated federal antitrust laws."

!HELLO! To make the point as obvious as possible, permit me to highlight two words in particular:

   *violated*

and

   *laws*

I think that Penfield's ruling is consistent with what I have heard for several years about MS's arrogant, scorched earth competitive tactics. Lets not succumb to the kind of euphemistic brainwashing and corporate "big lies" that MS' marketing drivel is based on.

I think that the overall thrust of the ruling supports the idea that MS has probably *stolen* a lot more technology than they originally developed, and that the arrogance that is demonstrated in the way that MS lies about their "thievery" ought to outrage the citizenry, especially given the difficulties that have been imposed on the populace when faced with the prospect of making alternative product choices.

I would guess that if Chris had been a principle in, or perhaps even a worker at, one of the software companies (many of them small, proud development groups) driven into the ground by MS' frequently ruthless tactics, he would be singing a different tune, rather than posting what I think are very inappropriate emotional appeals to the greed and/or financial self-interests of members of the technical community who have benefitted from the rise of popularized, mass market software and the resulting stock market irrationality. What I see in Chris' argument are facts that are being brought up in support of an unclear, or at least somewhat confused, premise that probably misses most of the more important issues that the whole set of legal actions against MS brings to light.

As stated before in other threads, my personal opinion is that there are two extreme camps (in sociological terms) involved in the shouting match about MS technology dominance:

1. the popularizers who aren't afraid of dirtying themselves with mass marketing crappy, but just barely good enough, "cheap" , "easy to use" products on the way to the bank, and
2. the tech purists (Unix, etc.) who hate the kind of aesthetic compromises that exist in convenient, cheap, mass marketed product.

MS = 1 and
many MS bashers = 2

I'm a populist, so I see the irony in the position of the representatives of the "purist" camp (#2) that wish they had been able to do what Gates & company pulled off even though they might have hated themselves for it in the end.

I can certainly sympathise with any loathing of the less scrupulous elements of the legal system, but I have see no evidence presented (much less any that is compelling) to support the idea that the lawsuits lack philosophical justification in the larger context of the constitutional system and (ever weakened) democratic cultural traditions of the USA. It (evidence) might be there, but I haven't seen it presented here.

Chris' argument seems to be based on two basic points:

  point # 1) there are crooked lawyers trying to gouge MS by using class action lawsuits, and

  point # 2) this somehow end up being bad for "our" investments

Frankly, I find the utter lack of any sort of higher principle or philosophical framework in such a formulation to be rather repulsive (sorry), especially given that ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT POINT #1 WAS PROVIDED. On point #2, while it is certainly a significant political reality that the new wealth of the tech community is increasing, I'm amazed at the implication that the ascent of NASDAQ is somehow sacrosanct.

The only reason that the anglo-imperial system has produced *any* sign of being a true civilization over the long run is that there are checks built into it against the brutalizing effects of capitalism, greed, racism, class arrogance, and so forth. All this has been fought out on several continents for a couple hundred years, and the social systems that brought us to where we are now are being so severly strained that I'm sceptical about the thought that they can be abused forever in the service of producing yet more filthy lucre that supports a new social strata permeated with the mentality of snotty hackers disconnected from human decency.

On the topic of MS' competition, I think people need to really get their facts straight about how the industry has evolved before they imply that since everybody else is "as bad a MS", its ok for MS to break the law. This seems to me to reflect a cynicism that is unacceptable. It also seems to imply that it is pointless to even try to support value systems that are based on caring about people, including the less powerful and wealthy members of the tech business community (who in some cases are actually the "real" innovators whose ideas were ripped off by the mass marketers).

Do we really want an arrogant, lying, criminally politicized corporate monoculture to dominate major segments of the market? No doubt such dominantion has short terms benefits, especially for the global "electronic herd" of investors and a lot of other elements of the american economy, but is it *really* the best way to advance the use of technology (in terms of social progress, building worldwide democratic institutions, etc.)?

On the subjet of pricing, if I actually knew anything about the "big picture", I would have said so. I don't. I'm not sure if the various lawsuits are in any sense "consistent" in terms of the other legal complexities/nuances of the cases, or not. Comparing MS' mass market desktop products to a bunch of stuff that is used by developers and sysadmns (purists) seems like apples and oranges. What you have to do is compare apples to apples (no pun intended). The problem is that at this point, there aren't any real alternatives to most of MS' mass market desktop products, are there? And the major (but not *only*) reason why is: BRUTALLY MONOPOLISTIC BUSINESS PRACTICES BY MICROSOFT (*not* the failure of other development efforts in the tech community).

Can the courts apply remedies that won't be even worse than the original disease? No one seems to know, so probably not. But at least some of the *ssholes at MS got taken down a few notches meanwhile, and maybe some of the clueless consumers that were BAMBOOZLED by MS marketing lies will get something back from it all.

Speaking of KMart, was that incredibly ugly looking sweater that BG wore in his hypnotically idiotic (and psychopathically innocent) TV commercials (about Microsoft "innovation") that came out around the time of the monopoly ruling from KMart or Walmart?

regards,
ep

On 31 Aug 2000, at 7:59, Yexley Robert D SSgt AFIT/SCA wrote:

Date sent:      	Thu, 31 Aug 2000 07:59:36 -0800
To:             	Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-
L_at_fatcity.com>
Send reply to:  	ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com
From:           	Yexley Robert D SSgt AFIT/SCA 
<Robert.Yexley_at_afit.af.mil>
Subject:        	RE: Off topic: New Microsoft suit [B*LLSH*T]
Organization:   	Fat City Network Services, San Diego, California

> Outstanding response Chris, I completely agree with you. And btw.....thank
> you for also more thoroughly censoring out part of the subject. I thought
> that was a bit unnecessary for a public forum. Thanks again for your
> opinions. MS bashing has just gotten way out of hand in my opinion. I
> really like Oracle and their products, but when it comes right down to it,
> and if you compare closely, they really aren't a whole lot better than
> Microsoft, and that ESPECIALLY applies when it comes to pricing.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 11:00 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>
>
>
> Wow... I didn't even get my flame suit on yet and
> boom, I'm a pile of goo... I'll respond to this one and no more.
> Where do I start:
>
> >No, MS was using *various* means to destroy
> >competition, including forcing OEMs to only
> >install MS products on their hardware.
>
> Various methods, yes. INCLUDING as the judge put it:
> Pricing items below what the competition could reasonably be expected to
> compete with. The California suit said they were too high. The feds say
> too low.
>
>
> >Also, $400 for MicroSoft Office Pro is cheap?
> Word, Powerpoint, Access, Outlook exp, etc all in one?
> Averages less than 100/program. Doesn't sound too outrageous to me.
> A bit pricey maybe, but not all that bad. There are games and such are
> costing 50-70 bucks nowadays. Professional software that helps to run
>
> my company for 100/program? I guess it depends on what pricey is to
> you. I think a copy of Sqlnavigator is pricey at 500 dollars. I think
> Oracle is pricey. I don't expect a lawsuit to bail me out...
>
>
> <Snip>
> >When I pissed and moaned about the
> >unfairness of MS' stated upgrade policy, another tech here told me
> >the SIMPLE means to work around the problem so that I could use the
> >$90 "Win98 upgrade" CD instead of the $190 *full* Win98 on a clean
> >disk install.
> >Now, you might argue that the *THREE* seperate MARKETING BOZOs I
> >called at MS headquarters couldn't figure out how to "correctly"
> >answer the question I was asking, but then I have to ask why, if he
> >has such VAST WEALTH at his disposal, Bill Gates can't figure out how
> >to hire and train people that know what the hell they are suppose to
> >be doing!
>
> Win98 for 90 or 190. Neither is unreasonable. If it helps the people
> of my company do their jobs better. Navigator from Quest cost us 3000 with
> all the bells and whistles and it's for pl-sql programming. What does
> IBM charge for OS licenses? I'd wager a lot less thanks to Microsoft, but
> probably not less than 200 per seat. Microsoft's support is a discussion
> for another day. The California suit is just to get some cash from the
> guy with the deep pockets.
>
>
> >Giving away the browser?
> >That was to destroy Netscape, whose founders, if you remember,
> >*invented* the "mass market" web browser (Mosaic), and therefore
> >perhaps arguably, invented the "popularized" web as we know it.
>
> Actually, I thought Al Gore invented that (sorry, couldn't resist)...
> Really though, this goes back to my question. Yes, they did give
> it away to destroy competition. That being said, the California
> suit suffers yet another hit. How can free be too pricey when talking
> straight dollars?
>
> >Also, if you remember, at the time MS blantantly took action to
> >DESTROY Netscape as competition, it was anticipated that *due to
> >their market presence* Netscape and/or others (Oracle/Sun?) would
> >come up with an alternate desktop OS (NC?) that would be the
> >beginning of the end of the MS WinBloat monopoly/domination.
>
> Just like Walmart is destroying Kmart and Sears and Penny's. I knew someone
>
> who worked in the world hdqtrs of Kmart. He told me that Kmart couldn't
> buy from the vendors for the price that Walmart was selling the same vendors
>
> product. I know he was exageratting, but you get the point. Walmart's
> private deals with the vendors was crushing Kmart. One look at the sorry
> state of
> Kmart shows it's working. Your goal as a business is to beat the
> competition.
> Just like IBM tried to do to HP and DEC. Just like Ford tries to do to GM
> and Chrysler.
> There will be competitors to Microsoft that will win too. I mean how's your
> Linux setup?
>
>
> >Not mine.
> >If you are so stupid and/or unethical as to participate in a
> >retirement inventment instrument that is heavily based in MS stock,
> >you deserve to get screwed when the govt finally gets around to
> >putting its boot down on Bill Gates' neck for the long accumulative
> >evil of destroying HUNDREDS of software companies.
>
> Petty insults are not needed, Eric. They don't add to your arguement. I
> don't own
> Microsoft stock. I own mutual funds like Janus 20 and Spectrafund and
> the like. Some own microsoft, some do not. That's irrelevent because they
> are
> into the tech market and as Microsoft went, so went the tech guys. Do not
> forget what
> happened in the spring. Once the Microsoft stuff blew through and Microsoft
> got
> crushed, they took most of the market with them and a lot of it isn't
> recovering
> very well. Right or wrong, the market is fairly emotion driven. What
> happens to
> the giants tends to happen to the rest. One bad earnings report, tends to
> trickle to others. Is the tech sector (companies like Cisco or Intraware or
> Oracle) evil?
> Please.
>
>
> >Please try to pick investments that are good for the environment and
> sensitive
> >to social justice issues, and be a responsible, activist citizen-consumer
> >instead of buying into the arrogant ethos of wretched excess and
> >corporate greed that MS epitomizes.
>
> Like lawfirms suing microsoft? Find me that stock and I am there. This may
> be
> because I am pigheaded, a yankee, or someone who just likes to argue, but I
> see this
> newest suit as a "let's get the guy with deep pockets" suit. Nothing more.
> That was the
> whole jist of my original post. This suit is to get the guy with the cash.
> Plain and
> simple.
>
> To the list, I am sorry guys. I'll take my thread and go home and will post
> no more to the
> list on this. Eric, if you want to continue this, email me direct.
>
> --Chris
> Chris.Bowes_at_Kosa.Com
>
Received on Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:47:31 CDT