Re: The new licensing model

--- From a message sent by pap on 12/16/99 8:08 PM ---

>But I do feel that the power you speak of is based not on some excess
>larceny in the heart of management but in the licenses they are granted
>to use it by not having to disclose one jot of code, along with the rest
>of the world. I do not see them being unique in this regard other than
>having overachieved at it.

| Exactly. Unlike some other members of this list, I don't view Microsoft's
| management as a genuine special case. Simply, they were gifted a virtual
| monopoly by IBM and then proceeded to leverage it to beat the band. Few
| corporations are ever availed of such as golden opportunity, which is why
| we see so few abusive monopolies of this kind, and not because the people
| running Microsoft are qualitatively less ethical then any other corporate
| execs. At least, not much. Past behavior is an issue, certainly, but we
| waste a lot of energy pasting horns on Bill Gates when what we really
| need is to strip away all the bluenosed rhetoric and focus on the basic
| issue, which is restoring open competition to the industry. Competition
| will cure a multitude of sins, real and perceived.

Mitch Stone
mstone@vc.net

It may indeed be true. but I did not intend to imply exonerating all behavior. There is the legal concept of liability for one's acts, kind of like running your bulldozer over your neighbor's flower bed even with the claim that it was not intentional. That is for the Bench to decide, which is their forte'. But I don't expect the Bench should have the burden of re-designing the rules of the road for the industry so as to cause the least collateral damage. I feel that it should be a consequential consideration for others who's focus is closer to the task.