Re: E-greeting card firm wins Microsoft case

[Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>]

At 08:09 PM 12/22/98 -0500, Steve Cohen wrote:
 
>Mitch Stone wrote:
>I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is true.  Microsoft may be innocent on
>this one.  It's just not possible to write a foolproof spam blocker.  It's a
>similar problem to those "pornography blockers."  Remember, they filtered
>out words like "breast" only to have the Breast Cancer support groups
>blocked.  Spam blockers that look for words like "free" and "cash" - what
>else will they filter out?  Free Software Foundation.  Fat Free Foods.
>Johnny Cash.
>
>This type of spam filter seems rather simpleminded.  Microsoft's real sin
>was to set up such a simpleminded form of spam filtering.

If there wasn't malice on the part of Microsoft (and I don't have evidence
that it was or wasn't, though it surely DOES look suspicious), it was
gross negligence. Microsoft should have tested its software to make sure
it wasn't going to damage or destroy someone else's business prospects.

Also, I'm sure Blue Mountain would NOT have gone to the expense of hiring
Gary Reback -- an EXTREMELY expensive lawyer -- had Microsoft actually
been willing to work with them on the problem. Folks just don't file
expensive lawsuits against huge corporations without trying to resolve
the matter via other means first.

So, we're left with a best-case conclusion and a worst-case one. At best, 
this incident shows that Microsoft wields its vast power (arguably, too
much of a concentration of power) irresponsibly, negligently, and 
uncaringly. At worst, it shows that Microsoft maliciously sabotages 
competitors. Take your pick; neither is flattering and both are legally
actionable.

--Brett