Back to the real world guys [was Re: Ayn Rand on Criminal Businessmen]

[Steve Cohen <stevecoh@mcs.com>]

Eric M. Bennett wrote:

> Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 24 Jul 1998, Charles Behney wrote:
> >
> >> Here's the Ayn Rand definition of a criminal under current US Code:
> >
> >First question: Who cares what Ayn Rand thinks?
>
> Well, I have seen more people who claim to care what Ayn Rand thinks than I
> have seen people who claim to care what Declan McCullagh thinks.  Of
> course, I have not taken a scientific sampling.  :-)
>
> >Ethics are one thing. The law is another.
>
> Yes, but I don't see how this invalidates Charles's point.  Just because
> the law and ethics are different does not mean that looking at Microsoft
> from an ethical rather than a legal point of view is somehow invalid.
>
> --
> Eric Bennett (http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/), Cornell Biochemistry Department
>
> [If you are Bill Gates and you] want to control video? Just add it to
> Windows. Want to control Java? Just add it to Windows. Want to control the
> Internet? Just add it to Windows. Everyone has to buy Windows.
> -Larry Ellison, Oracle CEO

Well, I picked this message to respond to, could have been any number of
others.
But indeed, what difference does it make what Declan McCullagh thinks, whether
he's been sarcastic or not, whether he uses emoticons or not.  Who gives a
hoot?  While you folks have been debating the fine points of these important
matters, the Hatch hearings have passed by without much comment.  May I bring
the discussion back to Earth, please?

1)  It was a smart poilitical move for Gates not to attend the hearings or send
a surrogate.  This allowed the news media to avoid covering the event.  The
Chicago Sun-Times, for example, had not one word on it. While the CST is hardly
a newspaper of record, they certainly covered the hearings when Gates was
there.  I asked a friend who is generally somewhat well-informed but not a
computer-head if he had heard that these hearings had happened - he had not.
So in spite of the fact that this hearing had a lot more meat in it than
Hatch's earlier one, Gates sufferered little damage.  Also, he probably had
some idea what the other testifiers were going to say - he had no credible
defense so not attending limited the damage.

2)  Declan is apparently echoing the official "mainstream media line" that the
Appeals Court decision ends all this antitrust nonsense and they don't have to
be nice to the anti-Microsoft folks anymore.  Take a look at Jesse Berst's
recent columns on the subject: (Or is it Liz Enbysk whose picture appears on
the top - who the heck is she?)

July 23 Pre hearing
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_2342.html

"MICROSOFT BASHERS DUE AT SENATE HEARING
Microsoft isn't expected at Utah Senator Orrin Hatch's latest public
probe into the software giant's business practices. But plenty of the
company's detractors will be on hand for the Senate hearing, dubbed
"Competition in the Digital Age: Beyond the Browser Wars." The
guest list includes Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, Lotus boss Jeff Papows
and Rob Glaser of RealNetworks. Our take: Ho hum. More political
grandstanding. Click for full story. "

Ho hum, political grandstanding, Hatch from Novell, etc.  No folks, you don't
need to care about this.  How about the day after?

http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_2345.html

"MICROSOFT'S REPUTATION GETS THE FULL MONTY
The U.S. Justice Department is investigating allegations Microsoft
tried to convince Apple to stay out of the multimedia software
market, according to reports in the Wall Street Journal. Investigators
are mulling over data that indicates the software giant asked Apple
three times to abandon its plans for the Windows multimedia market
-- reportedly in exchange for an endorsement of Apple's software
tools. Apple reportedly rejected the overtures, and admits recent
?er? "disagreements" with Microsoft over its development of
multimedia software for Windows. Click for full story. Meantime,
high-tech execs lined up to blast the software giant before a Senate
committee -- painting the company as bent on exploiting its
Windows monopoly to crush competition. The bitterest accusations
came from 10-year Microsoft veteran Rob Glaser, now CEO of
RealNetworks, who claims recently-released Microsoft software
intentionally breaks RealNetwork's products. Microsoft denies the
allegations. Our take: What! Microsoft try to damage its competition?
That is just toooooo hard to believe. "

Now what the hell is he (she?) saying here?  I can think of two
interpretatations
1.  Of course, we've known this stuff for years.  It's old hat.  Therefore we
have no obligation to report it or take it seriously.
MY TAKE (SC) - how CONVENIENT for Microsoft!

2.  Everything is legitimate in competition.
MY TAKE (SC) - Everything?  Suppose Microsoft were to integrate into Win98
virus protection against an as yet unknown virus.  And then they
surreptitiously released the virus into the general world, slyly hinting that
if you had Win98 this wouldn't be a problem.  I'm not saying they're doing
this, but if they were, would THAT be legitimate competition?  Or maybe just
hire a hitman to take out Glaser, Ellison or any ot these other troublesome
people.  All's fair in love and war, right?
Isn't that what she's saying?  The charges made by Glaser et al, even if proven
true, do not bother her?

I find it interesting that one month ago, the mainstream media were not
behaving this way.  What a
pack of frontrunners.  How can anyone take them seriously?