Slashdot Mirror
Balmer Vows to Kill Google
An anonymous reader writes "Probably due to the Microsoft suit against Google over human resources, some very heated exchanges have turned up in some court documents. Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer has apparently
vowed to kill Internet search leader Google, according to documents filed in the increasingly bitter battle between the rivals." From the article: "At some point in the conversation, Mr. Ballmer said: 'Just tell me it's not Google,'' Lucovosky said in his statement. Lucovosky replied that he was joining Google. 'At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office,' Lucovosky recounted, adding that Ballmer then launched into a tirade about Google CEO Eric Schmidt. 'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.' Schmidt previously worked for Sun Microsystems and was the CEO of Novell."
Discuss.
And First Post.
isn't it slander and defamation to post quotes like that without the evidence to back it up?
RE:["Ballmer then launched into a tirade about Google CEO Eric Schmidt. 'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.' Schmidt previously worked for Sun Microsystems and was the CEO of Novell."]
what an immature neanderthal...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
That the CEO of Microsoft is a calm and collective guy. With good management come good software. I am glad that 90% of the worlds computers are running software by responsible and rational managers.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It comes as something of a surprise that Steve Ballmer doesn't know how to spell the word "fuck".
Or maybe "f***ing" is the poster's way of representing Ballmer's dribbling, shouting, flobbing, ranting, malsonorous splange of words laughingly called his voice.
Nice man.
Microsoft lacks class. It's visible in their products and apparently shows also in personal behavior of their leaders. It's interesting to watch Microsoft's Channel 9 to see this in their corporate culture. No wonder they get mad at Google.
He looks a bit like Tony Soprano on that article's picture, this is truly scary.
I kind of half imagine him like Scarface at the end of the Pacino movie.
- sigs are for wimps.
I dont know if I would threaten anyone who was Deeply involved with the Evil that is (or can i safely say was(please?)) Novell.... Ex Novell Admin 3,4,5 and 6.... Recovering daily through OSS therapy....
The world's smartest bug zapper www.zapstats.com/kickstarter
I see that he has remembered the "We will bury you" line without having remembered the fate of the utterer which he is likely to emulate in some near future.
two men enter, one man leaves
two men enter, one man leaves
TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES!
Steve Ballmer can kill anyone he wants! Steve Ballmer throws chairs ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. This guy is so crazy and awesome that he flips out ALL the time. I heard that Steve Ballmer was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon Ballmer killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw Steve Ballmer totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window.
And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yup...
Shit man, I know I don't act that immature at my very worst. Maybe you get like that. You should try to limit the scope of your "just people like us" comments, because not everyone's like that (thank god!).
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
The scene was more like this:
Balmer: 'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.'
BillG: YEAH!
Balmer: Then I'm going to take this frikkin chair, smash his face with it, and lick the blood off the ring.
BillG: Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Watcha gonna dooooo....
Balmer: BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M REALLY PUMPED UP ABOUT!?!?!
BillG: Oooooh Yeah!
Balmer: I just saved a boatload of money by switching to Geico.
(Running on excercise machine)
BillG: You can dooo it!!!
Assuming that the chair-throwing and the mindset it implies are true... whose stock do you buy or sell?
Google?... Microsoft?... (OfficeMax?)
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
I'll take it you've never watched the Steve Balmer "Developers, developers, developers" video then? (aka Monkey Dance)
Well if you missed it: have a look here
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you
:)
Reminds me of that recent article about testing CEO's for being a sociopath.
I was shocked to see this was actually not a The Onion article like last time.
That monkey dancer never cease to amaze me.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
He made a death threat against everyone at Google. He should be in jail.
I dont understand why its so important for Microsoft to kill any competition. If they succeed in creating a bigger market they still earn more money even with lots of competitors. Is Microsoft really nothing more than a wanking session for two really pathetic men? One would have thought they would have matured by now and start to think about what they leave after they die. Why not start doing good things for computing for a change? MS has been the biggest roadblock in software evolution to date and nothing can change that if Microsoft doesnt start to behaive like grownups.
HTTP/1.1 400
Well I remember in one of the "ethics" courses they make me take at work that you aren't allowed to say that you will "bury" the competition. Seems that it can be taken as anti-competitive and used against you in court. Of course this is Microsoft we are talking about... being accused of being anti-coompetive isn't exactly anything new. ZK
Time flies like an arrow Fruit flies like a banana
You can't be sued over what you only say in court. If you repeate the same slander or libel outside of court, you can be sued for that after the case has ended (regardless of whether you're found guilty of perjury), as SCO's executives might find out soon.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Microsoft can't coexist with anyone. To them, "the competition" is anyone in the computer industry who is making money or gaining power who is not them. You cannot possibly say MSN search or, say, microsoft netmeeting were serious products Microsoft cared about or which were serious competitors to google or skype when they started up; you cannot possibly say the appearance of skype or google threatened any product that Microsoft was even meaningfully supporting. Yet skype and google gain mindshare, and suddenly making the "google killer" or the "skype killer" become huge priorities. Or at the other end of things, Microsoft ignored Adobe for years as long as they were powerless, profitable but consigned to a "niche", predictable; but suddenly Adobe starts having influence on popular file formats in the form of PDF (invented) or Flash (bought), starts showing signs of growth, and suddenly it becomes absolutely essential for some reason that Microsoft create a PDF Killer.
... then the first thing that happens is the most powerful company in all of software suddenly has it as priority number one to take you out, duplicate your product and give it away for free, subsume your functionality into the OS, etc. They won't always succeed at this, but they have at least the ability to make your life and job very difficult without even breaking a sweat. And it has been demonstrated that even in the most flagrant case of destructive behavior, even if they are tried and convicted of illegal acts, there will be no consequences for them.
Microsoft keeps demonstrating, again and again, that they believe no one may have power but them, and keep killing companies to attain that goal. And people just keep pretending this is somehow good for the market, because the idea that market forces could lead to something other than the perfect outcome is just something some people just don't want to admit could happen.
But this is hurting the market, in the most direct way possible: Microsoft's expansion strategy is based not on finding the next big thing, but on stopping it before it starts.
Supposedly the computer industry lives and thrives on small discoveries that grow to the "next big thing". You know, the proverbial cliche of the startup in somebody's garage, a new way of looking at things, an idea that could change the world, yadda yadda yadda. But more and more the fact is-- and most people see this-- if you find that brilliant idea, if you sweat and pour your life and blood and tears into making the new next greatest thing,
What is the point of trying to build, or finance something revolutionary like Skype, if you know that whatever it is (even if it isn't something Microsoft does yet) Success will just result in Microsoft signing a corporate death warrant? The answer is obviously "because you love what you are doing", but what about the people who don't love what they're doing enough to take the risk of so much wasted effort? Are there people who would be going out and doing new and interesting things they aren't doing now in a world where trying to change the face of computing is rewarded rather than punished? What kind of chilling effect is this having?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Does this count as a death threat?
In addition he did say he would bury the person at Google.
I think that just maybe the police should get involved. Death threats should be taken seriously, and doubly so by people that are obviously not on an even keel.
I think society needs protecting from potential killers like Ballmer.
(yes, this isn't meant in a totally serious way!)
You know Schmidy is just harboring some serious grudge against MS right now. If Balmer thinks he's the only one with the motivation to compete, he doesn't know what it's like to be driven vengenance. Schmidt is like the underdog who've been kicked around and have finally made his break. We all know how those stories end.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Imagine, if you will, Dr. Claw, banging on his desk, alarming his cat:
I'LL GET YOU NEXT TIME GOOGLE! NEXT TIME!!!
Next time Microsoft gets sued and pretends it has destroyed the emails, they should point to this incident as an example of how they find emails when they want to - even deleted emails on a local PC.
Sure, it's the system. The problem with that argument is that it takes the people who put the system into place out of the whole discussion. Doing so, you neglect that it's the people who institute the system and the ones that execute it that make it even exist. Doing so, it makes it seem that the system is the problem, not the people- but then, look at what happened in WWII... The system's the one that set up the scenerio for the horrific acts performed- why didn't we blame the system? Oh, that's right, following orders doesn't count in that- just as the people who instituted the system was guilty of the acts.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Investors should take note of these types of situations.
While we all think it funny, it offers insight into the emotional response of the CEO of the world's largest software company. It shows his a weakness, that he is personally threatened by Google, and a despiration, that he feels Google just one upped him. There is a difference between being passionate about your products and being threatened by your market mates.
Is this the type of personality you would want running the company your 401(k) was invested in? Your retirement future, child's education, or second house at the lake, all riding on the ability of a short tempered reactionist who would scream and shout and create a personal vendetta not only aginst a competitor, but CEO-to-CEO?
In many cases the CEO is a significant reason to invest in a company - that's why there are such massive stock sell offs or buy ins when leadership changes (look at HP recently as an example or further back to Chrysler, GM, etc).
I'd rather invest in a company who's CEO is headstrong and confident enough to try to innovate their competition our of existance, not temper tantrem their CEO to death.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
I think Balmer is violating Nintendo's Insanity Patent.
Overheard in the Google boardroom --
Balmer: I've done far worse than kill you, Google. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her: marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet, buried alive. Buried alive.
Google: BAAAAALLLLLMER!!!!!!
Did anyone that's bashing Ballmer and Microsoft actually read the article? Here's the summary:
1. Kai Fu-Lee was an important executive at Microsoft and was a key resource on their expansion into China.
2. Even before quitting at Microsoft, Kai Fu-Lee was working secretly for Google by sending them Microsoft documents. Google admits this, but their defense is that it was public information anyway.
3. Kai Fu-Lee had an employment contract with Microsoft that Google conspired with Lee to violate. At least two violations occurred including his non-compete agreement and working against the company you're working for while you're working for it.
4. A judge already ruled preliminarily in Microsoft's favor, stating that Lee could not do the duties at Google he was hired to do.
Of course, anyone surprised by this hasn't been paying attention to Google's actions lately. They're trying to be the next Microsoft and as such will be not only utilizing every play from their playbook, but also inventing some new evil tactics as well.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Zonk isn't a man, it's an AI. And he's getting tired of doing nothing but posting articles and will probably go rampant soon.
Seriously, who cares, at least we are getting articles, but then I guess people have to bitch about someone since Michael's been gone.
Back to the topic... Whether these allegations are true or not, it's pretty obvious that Microsoft as a whole is beginning to thrash. They used to point at an industry or niche and say, "We're going in" and owned it withing a year.
But lately their history is littered with failed attempts to get into markets. The problem is, they keep trying to put as many fingers in as many pies as they can at once instead of focusing on what they really are, an OS, networking software, and Office Suite company.
Gee, let's take over digital music. Failed, they got owned by Apple.
Gee let's take over video. Again owned, MPEG-4 is the standard and players like VLC are used instead of Microsofts whenever possible.
Gee let's take over search. You guessed it, owned by Google, who focus on their market, search and advertising. Though Google is spreading out into other areas, which could be troublesome for them in the future, they are at least keeping these areas focused on search. In the case of Google Mail, their search technology is the centerpiece of the offering, well that and an assload of mail storage.
So the real problem is, Microsoft is so busy trying to be everything, trying to compete and crush everyone, that they are lagging in their core buisiness areas. That is why Office is being replaced by Open Office now. That is why Apple is poised to steal the OS market from them, should they decide to make that leap. That is why Linux is taking away their server markets, and Apache is eating into their webservr markets. Microsoft is too busy spinning around in circles to focus on what they once did best, and it's only a matter of time now before they screw themselves into the ground.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
I find this story very interesting, because back when I was in college I interned at Intel. Very first day we went through antitrust training because Intel had been burned a couple of times on antitrust issues. One of the big points they made was don't ever claim that some technology is an "AMD-killer" or that we're going to "kill" a certain company. Statements like that can be used in antitrust proceedings as proof that you were actively trying to force a competitor out of the marketplace. Not sure if it applies here, but there are definitely some similarities.
I do not see that line anywhere in the article.
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
did he say these words? As long as Lucovosky says so.
things could turn more complicated when balmer would deny it. there's no way to tell. it has been a person to person concersation. truth is out there.
is it because aussie papers are being written as US papers sleep?
is it because US papers simply dont want to report this stuff?
is it because US papers dont want to rock the boat?
i dont know... but it seems to me the SMH gets mentioned *alot* - make me wonder why.
Our current government is "pro-Business" rather than "pro-Market".
Being pro-Business means that you pass laws designed to protect the revenue streams of businesses (copyright extensions, DMCA, patents on "business methods", etc).
Being pro-Market means that you pass laws designed to facilitate competition in a market and curb the excesses of existing companies.
An original blog entry...
....
http://battellemedia.com/archives/001835.php
At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: "Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google."
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Lucovosky is a smart guy but is also a prima donna quite capable of embellishment. Let's just say there are undoubtedly two sides to this story. I read the story linked to from the original post and note that Ballmer said that Lucovosky exaggerated the meeting. Based on my interactions with Lucovosky I would tend to believe Ballmer. That said, I have no doubt that Ballmer was passionaet and noisy. Anyone with an Internet connection knows that (Developers! Developer! Developers!).
I never understood why Bill Gates didn't retire once he was worth an astronomical amount of money.
You hear about Ballmer flippin out, throwing chairs because he lost someone to Google, but what does he care? How OLD is he?
I'll guess... early 50's, and looking at him, he's not exactly in great shape and probably has a shitload of stress to deal with, which means he'll be dead in 20 years.
Why not just fucking retire? You're worth billions... so what personal feeling of satisfaction is to be had by conquering google? Even if you don't conquer google, you'll still be filthy fucking rich.
What's the point? It's not like they offer quality products..
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Actually, what Ballmer is doing is true capitalism; it's just the extreme of it. Capitalism is great, but this is exactly what it turns into when allowed to go unchecked. That is why we have governmental controls. Too much government = communism; too little = ruthless Capitalism (e.g. Ballmer).
While I agree that Ballmer's strategy is maniacal and disgusting, you can't reproach him by saying that he isn't true to Capitalism, as though Capitalism is this machine turning out benevolence and fairness.
This is akin to saying that all we need is true Democracy. Democracy is great too, but pure Democracy is pure majority-rule and no protection of minorities. If 51% wanted to ostracize blacks, then, hey, that's democracy. Fortunately, we don't live in a pure democracy. We have very undemocratic institutions such as the Constitution and the Courts.
Thus, you can't condemn Ballmer as though he's not following "true" Capitalism. He is; that's the problem.
There may be times where it seems like the difference between a passionate genius and a dangerous madman is thin and difficult to place. The thing is though. They really are two different things, and it matters which one that someone is.
That's a bold assertion. Have any proof?
I know smart, passionate people who are perfectly nice. As far as I'm concerned, people who can't control their aggression and desire for dominance need therapy and medication. Jobs behaves exactly like a lot of cult leaders (and some would say "other cult leaders"). I'm glad that he makes cool stuff, but he's still an asshole who makes cool stuff. It would be better if he were a good person who made cool stuff.
Oh comon,
He road the wave, he didn't create it.
The big one was forged on the sea foam souls of broken hearts and misplaced hand shakes. A plankton of tears washes about in what is the big kahuna of business.
No, Mr. Balmer need not be a shrewd business man, but rather simply he must only know how to stay afloat.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
This is not the first time that Steve Ballmer goes over the line. He is responsible for much of what is wrong with Microsoft. He is not a business man, he is on a egomaniac crusade against the rest of the world. It is my belief that Microsoft without Steve Ballmer would behave much more ethical in the industry, and not like a drunk and blind elephant in a porn shop.
//Cartoon
'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.' Schmidt previously worked for Sun Microsystems and was the CEO of Novell."
What else do you need to know about Microsoft? The company is run by an ill-tempered bald ex-football player who's in it for the sport and kill, nothing else. Ballmer deals in concepts like "team spirit", "take no prisoners", and "offense/defense", not bits, bytes, and software.
Ballmer is also overestimating his own business acumen. Ballmer didn't "bury" Novell or Sun; to the degree that Novell and Sun have problems, they are self-inflicted or due to changing market conditions. I can't think of much Ballmer has done as a businessman that was particularly clever; most of what he has been responsible has been shady or outright illegal bullying of other companies. Shady deals he really is good at.
Sadly, there are some good engineers and technologists at Microsoft, but they are just pawns in Ballmer's grand game and strategy. Well, fortunately, they seem to be leaving for greener pastures. Which brings us back to Ballmer's chair throwing...
Of course, someone will at some point as everything is impermanent and all power ends some day. Before that, however, attachment of Balmer and the like brings them much apparently suffering which they deal with by screaming profanities and throwing furniture. And that's something I find distasteful. It's rather hard to respect a man in his late forties with emotional reactions of a spoiled child.
What we have are two very different forms of capitalism: Big Business Capitalism and Free Market Capitalism. They are different and generally mutually incompatible. Yet they can both claim to be the "real" form of Capitalism.
Big Buisness Capitalism has historically been the foundation of Social Darwinism.
We as a country made a very conscious decision in the middle part of the 19th century to move away from Big Buisness Capitalism and use the government to protect the marketplace. This eventually led to very large social and economic changes occuring in the early part of the 20th century. The idea that the Free Market is something to be protected is something that has been further advanced by fears that we could see a sort of fascism by Big Business.
Now, to tie this in with the writings of Karl Marx. Marx was writing at the time of the Industrial Revolution and Das Kapital largely discusses the nature of Bug Business Capitalism. Marx rightly pointed out that this form of Capitalism was unsustainable in any real way and resulted in a large number of social ills (he saw it as better than the Feudal economic systems it replaced however). Marx therefore concluded that as this form of capitalism collapsed under its own weight, that it would be replaced by a system where the workers ran and owned the means of production. In general, this has not happened. However, Marx was right in that this form of capitalism did fall in the developed world. What has increasingly replaced it, however, is not Marxian socialism but *free market* capitalism. I am actually genuinely surprised that Marx did not see the rise of antitrust laws, for example, as the foundation of what would replace or modify the forms of Capitalism he was writing about.
While Free Market Capitalism does "socialize" one of the important aspects of the "means of production" it does not do so by declaring factories, energy infrastructure, etc. as common goods but rather by focusing on a more abstract concept of the "marketplace" as a common good and something to be protected by the government. This is why we have antitrust laws.
What Microsoft is doing is fundamentally at odds with capitalism as it is established here in the US. They have on their record a court finding that they violated antitrust law. I.e. they are a convicted monopolist (yes, they were conviceted in a civil case, but there are plenty of court documents which uphold the concept of a conviction in a civil case).
Another interesting angle of this case might be if counterclaims are filed as a result alleging that Microsoft is abusing its monopoly to hurt Google (MSN search is the default search engine in IE). IANAL, but I believe that the principle of collateral estoppel might put Microsoft in a bad position here. Maybe even bad enough to cause them to drop the suit in exchange for the counterclaims to be dropped.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP