[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: interface based monopolies
Jordan --
I agree with your comments about not making Gates out to be a
Hitler, and I think from the other postings I've made to this list, you
can see that I am in fact trying to take the "high road" in the
"Appraising of Microsoft", and I have submitted postings which
discourage making this too much of an issue about Bill Gates the
person. We really, really need to focus on MICROSOFT's tactics here,
not on the character of Bill Gates. At least that's my strong belief.
I'm getting nervous at all of the "Bill = Hitler"-type postings that
have been on this list, because I think they're actually hurting the
agenda of the conference. Like I said before (and I know this might
sound really strange but I believe it to be true), part of the hill that
those of us who believe Microsoft has engaged in anticompetitive tactics
are trying to climb is psychological in nature. It's fighting the
natural psychological inclination of people who hear complaints against
Microsoft from saying to themselves, "Boy do these guys envy Bill
Gates!", or "Boy do these guys have a problem with successful
companies.". What this conference (and mailing list) is about is
educating ourselves and the general public about possible unfair and
anticompetitive practices, nothing more. Anything more (particularly
anything more personal about Gates) is likely to have the effect we've
actually heard off and on right here on this list --"You guys have a
problem with successful companies and/or successful people". (Take for
example, Tibor Machan's earlier comments.)
If you've read Ralph Nader's letter to Gates inviting him to the
conference, you see that this is what he himself believed in the
beginning -- that all the questions surrounding Microsoft were nothing
more than envy. Then as he researched things a little further, his
opinions changed. This same kind of education needs to be imparted to
the general public. The quickest way to have them ignore you is to make
extremist, militaristic comments and analogies. So this psychological
battle needs to be fought in some of the people posting to this list, as
well, IMHO.
Just to ensure that you all think I'm REALLY strange, I thought a
helpful analogy might be... a sports-related one. (Yep, you read
right.) How often do you see in a sporting event a team lose because
they got caught up in their opponent rather than on playing their game?
And how often do you see this team first get frustrated, then start
taking personal shots at the opposing players, soon lose all composure,
and wind up not only losing the game, but losing the respect of the
viewers and fans as well? The point I'm trying to make is no one's ever
quite sure who would have won if one team hadn't lost their heads. The
teams sure seemed well-matched on the basis of the objective
statistics...
There's a large collection of questionable conduct on the part of
Microsoft. It's my belief that the case against them will in fact hold
up under that -- if that case can be expressed impartially,
methodically, and civilly. It's a classic witness credibility thing.
By the way, I agree with you Jordan that the case against Microsoft
must be drawn on historic principles, at least to a point -- like others
have said, I question whether ANY company in history has tried to extend
their dominance across such a wide spectrum quite like Microsoft has.
This is another major portion of Ralph Nader's letter to Gates -- how
real estate, banking, and numerous other sectors are all simply "running
scared" right now as Microsoft bears down on replacing their core
business values with online alternatives. This ability the Internet
offers to transfer information previously held in trust by various
professionals (real estate agents, bankers, etc.) is without precedent,
I believe.
As far as your comment about sun and netscape -- this is
oversimplifying what I said a little bit, but again I reiterate that the
conference is entitled "Appraising Microsoft", and we would do all do
well to not prejudge Sun and Netscape or predict their actions.
Alan Glanz
Programmer/Analyst
Jordan Pollack wrote:
> Alan and Hans replied to my suggestion to nationalize
> the windows API as (essentially):
>
> >"sun and netscape arent problems; lets worry about microsoft first"
>
> My point is that a case against Microsoft needs to be drawn in the
> public interest, on historic principles which would apply to all,
> rather than as a fight for wealth among charismatic, cherubic, or
> geeky technology CEOs.
>
> I also think that a general piling on to Bill Gates as a paranoid
> world conquerer, a.k.o napolean or hitler, is the wrong approach. it
> is
> also a hard ball to get rolling now that MS advertises in all major
> media and can stop advertising in those who cover Nader's meeting.
> (For all we know, IE is the official browser for the democratic and
> republican parties, except in Utah!:)
>
> Finally, if MS perceives that laws are written just to punish it, it
> could
> easily buy a Berne Convention signatory island nation, which would
> welcome infinite returns. And the US immigration department has no way
>
> of evaluating source code for value to charge an export tariff.
>
> Professor Jordan B. Pollack DEMO Laboratory, Volen Center for
> Complex Systems
> Computer Science Dept, MS018 Phone (617) 736-2713/Lab x3366/Fax x2741
>
> Brandeis University website: http://www.demo.cs.brandeis.edu
>
> Waltham, MA 02254 email: pollack@cs.brandeis.edu