Re: E-greeting card firm wins Microsoft case

[Steve Cohen <stevecoh@mcs.com>]

Brett Glass wrote:

> 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

Well, at any rate, Microsoft certainly took their time about correcting the
problem.  You're right.