Re: E-greeting card firm wins Microsoft case

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

--- From a message sent by Brett Glass on 12/22/98 6:32 PM ---

>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.

Maybe, but why should they take care when nobody else does? At least in 
terms of filtering, they may well be no worse then the lot. Hardly a 
defense, I realize, but neither is it an inditement.

>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.

I'm not much as a mind reader, but perhaps Blue Mountain knew they'd need 
serious council from the start or Microsoft would not take them 
seriously. I might presume that in their position.

>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.

Of course they wield their power irresponsibly, negligently and 
uncaringly -- they're a public utility in training!

Mitch Stone
mstone@vc.net