Ballmer Defends Microsoft In China

An anonymous reader writes "Mr. Ballmer has recently posted on the official Microsoft blog discussing future business in China and defending Microsoft's stance of cooperating with the government even as other large IT companies have begun making public condemnations (Google and Twitter being the most prominent). Couple this with Bill Gate's speech on China's censorship being not all that bad (a speech very well received by Chinese media) and you've got people wondering: Is Microsoft aiming to take Google's place in China?"

Comments

More than likely.

[AllyGreen]

Sounds like typical MS style. Plus they've got to great lengths before to get the chinese gov to use their software. Don't see whats changed from their point of view.

Re:More than likely.

[sopssa]

Corporations need to apply by laws, There are laws I don't like in my country, there are laws I don't like in US, and there definitely are laws I don't like in China. But if you want to work in any of these environments, you have to go by laws

Re:More than likely.

[AllyGreen]

Which is exactly what I meant by not seeing whats changed from their point of view.

Re:More than likely.

[Rogerborg]

Well, that's true. After all, they're only obeying orders, and so they bear absolutely no personal or corporate responsibility for the consequences of their actions. That's how it works, isn't it? Right? Right?

Re:More than likely.

[JesseL]

You don't have to abide by the law. It's certainly possible not to (individuals and corporations do it all the time), though it would be wise to at least know when you are and aren't operating within the law.

Re:More than likely.

[blind biker]

After all, they're only obeying orders, and so they bear absolutely no personal or corporate responsibility for the consequences of their actions. That's how it works, isn't it? Right?

That's right son, just obey the orders. And get that vagonload of Jews to the gas chambers.

Re:More than likely.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which of these are you trying to say?

1. 
        
2. Corporations need to apply bylaws. Microsoft's bylaws

3.      

4. Corporations have to go buy laws. Recent Supreme Court campaign finance decision

5.      

6. Corporations need to abide by laws. [please provide a reference]

Re:More than likely.

[TooMuchToDo]

We'll remember that the next time you visit Iran and are stoned to death for showing too much skin. I mean, the law is the law, right?

Re:More than likely.

[c0d3g33k]

The following question appeared on a political science final exam in college (pertaining to American History):

        "If all laws are just, were the Founding Fathers criminals?"

Understand that, and you understand the essential conundrum between respecting local laws and living according to principles. How corporations behave when faced with this says a lot about them and the people who run them.

Re:More than likely.

[paeanblack]

That's right son, just obey the orders. And get that vagonload of Jews to the gas chambers.

And what of the wagonmakers? Must they stop making wagons because of how some of their wagons are used? What about the wheelwrights and axlemakers?

At some point along that line, it no longer becomes immoral to remain in business, even if you are aware that some of your products are being used in an utterly despicable manner.

Re:More than likely.

[Greg Hullender]

Actually, at least when it comes to Search Engine censorship, China always gave Microsoft a pass. I was responsible for the team inside MSN Search (now Bing) that developed the software to filter "objectionable content". (The "safe search" feature.) In places like the US, customers can turn it off, but in places like Germany and China, where there are laws, the customers cannot. I was uneasily expecting to have to incorporate a list of banned sites from the Chinese government, and while I didn't like it, I didn't see any way around it, and I spoke to our VP privately about it to make sure he understood my position. That my loyalty was to the company and I'd do what had to be done, even if I didn't like it.

Much to my surprise, he was upset with me. He had VERY strong feelings about this issue, and he insisted China wasn't going to make us do it. That was the same month when China's president visited Microsoft before he visited George Bush, and in his speech on campus, he said, "China is a friend of Microsoft because Microsoft has always been a friend of China." Sure enough, whatever China made Google do, they didn't make US do anything special. Germany was a much bigger headache.

So I guess I'd say, that, no, you actually don't have to go by those laws if you're in a country that puts personal relationships above the law. Apparently they really don't think of the law the same way we do, and that was a real eye-opener. For me, anyway.

Or maybe the real truth was that the Chinese government figured out that our poor little search engine couldn't find the objectionable stuff anyway except by accident, and they just felt sorry for us. :-)

--Greg (happily retired from it all now)

Re:More than likely.

[wealthychef]

At some point along that line, it no longer becomes immoral to remain in business, even if you are aware that some of your products are being used in an utterly despicable manner.

The question is not whether Microsoft should remain in business. It's whether it should do business with a government that will use your products in a repressive manner. A wagonmaker could probably sell his wagons to someone who does not kill its own citizens for their ethnicity and still remain in business. But here is the crux. It won't quite make as much money. And the pure lust for profit is what is objectionable here.

Re:More than likely.

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes no sense. The Wheel makers deal with the Wagon makers, not the despicable entity. It is the business that deals directly with the entity in terms of direct sales that should be under scrutiny, not the ore miners, metal welders, axle and wheel makers.

Re:More than likely.

[MozeeToby]

What about when the order comes in for a wagon specialy designed for the purpose? China demands that they change their product in a way that everyone in the company has to recognize is unethical, but everyone just goes along with it and claims they're just following orders.

Re:More than likely.

[javilon]

But if you want to work in any of these environments, you have to go by laws

Well, there are two problems here. The first is that the Chinese government and his state corporations don't obey Chinese law. Isn't it forbidden to hack into other peoples computers in China?

The second is the key difference between Microsoft and Google:

  Microsoft is directed by your standard issue marketing drone, Ballmer, and the result is what you usually get from western corporations: mindless search for profits. He may as well be operating a arms dealership.

On the other hand, Google (and many of the internet startups) is directed by people that at least gives some thought to morals and let it "interfere" with business. For them there are some laws that one cannot obey.

Re:More than likely.

[micromoog]

> At some point along that line, it no longer becomes immoral to remain in business The point where that occurs is where your actions and decisions no longer have a significant impact. Microsoft, and your wagon makers, are both far from that point. It's entirely within the wagon maker's power to refuse to fill that order for 1,000 new wagons to the Nazi Party. If the wagons are making it to the Party through aftermarket back channels, THAT's where the wagon maker can begin to claim no moral responsibility. That's not where we are, though.

Re:More than likely.

[Greg Hullender]

Except that in this particular case, Google did obey those laws. It was Microsoft that had the moral objection. (Or our VP did, anyway.)

The right and wrong on this one is very muddy.

--Greg

Re:More than likely.

[hrimhari]

Well, you could just, like, not go there, you know? It's not like you're being forced to.

The problem here is that not only Mr. and Mrs. Microsoft are going there but they're saying that they're pretty happy with the local laws. So it makes one wonder which is worse:

1. They really believe that, or
2. They don't believe it but they say it anyway just to get even more dirty money.

Re:More than likely.

[ShogunTux]

And yet this is exactly what's going on with the internet and holding ISP's responsible. I think that's what the grandparent was trying to refer to in a roundabout way.

Re:More than likely.

[digitig]

And where do you draw the line? A country (or state) that still has the death penalty for crimes that don't carry the death penalty in your country (or state)? A country that invades other countries and kills their citizens with no legal warrant? With questionable legal warrant? A country that supplies any of the above with funding or equipment? A country in which individuals supply any of the above with funding or equipment? A country in which some groups are seriously repressed but not killed? A company with a diversity policy not quite as encompassing as yours?

Realistically, if you're making the gas chambers then you have decided your moral position by the business you are in. If you are making the actual tools of killing then there's a case that you have a moral duty to take care over how they will be used. But the further you get from that then the more your moral responsibility is diluted, to the point where it's lost in the noise.

Just out of interest, if there are problems with MS providing software to such governments, what does the Linux/GNU community do to make sure their tools are not used instead?

Re:More than likely.

[digitig]

The following question appeared on a political science final exam in college (pertaining to American History):

"If all laws are just, were the Founding Fathers criminals?"

For what it's worth, when answering a conditional question like that you have to take the "if" part to be true even if you don't consider it to be. So the interesting bits of that question are whether the Founding Fathers broke any laws whilst actually under the jurisdiction of those laws, and if all laws are just does that mean that all laws should have universal jurisdiction. I don't know enough American history to answer the first part, but I reckon I could make a strong case for an answer of "No" to the second.

Re:More than likely.

[soupd]

I'm no fan of Microsoft but whatever your ideology or beliefs, commercial realities remain and China is, and will continue to be, big business. Kudos to Google perhaps, but if I were a Microsoft shareholder I would want Microsoft to be wanting to make inroads in to this market. Morals do not pay the bills. As an individual would you (not the parent) be happy to content to contribute half your income for the rest of your life if it meant China was truly free and democratic? I doubt many would.

Re:More than likely.

[interploy]

What corporate responsibility? Because it seems to me there's a lot of talk about corporate responsibility, but when it comes to it, the powers that be don't really care what a corporation does so long as they don't screw the shareholders/government. Otherwise, when a corporation comes into violation with the law (and assuming the defendants can afford to holdout for the duration of the trial), the most they'll get is some nominal fine that sounds big to the average person, but is really no more than a slap on the wrist.

All this justification crap is just fluff. Here's the real reason Microsoft is in China: Microsoft wants to make money. China has money to spend. Therefore, Microsoft will cooperate with China so it can get some of it's money.

That's it. Surprising, I know. Honestly, Microsoft could go on about how it'd give every Chinese person a fucking ice-cream shitting unicorn and it'd come to the same effect. So long as the shareholders are happy, it doesn't really matter what they say to the public.

Re:More than likely.

[sjames]

At SOME point yeah, but it's probably further down the line than the pawn broker selling to the guy that says "gimmee a gun, I gotta cap some gas jockey's ass!".

It's one thing to sell to someone who may or may not sell to someone who may or may not misuse the product. It's quite another to sell to someone who you know for a fact intends to misuse the product to harm others.

Re:More than likely.

[advocate_one]

google IBM and the Nazis...

Re:More than likely.

[sjames]

Just out of interest, if there are problems with MS providing software to such governments, what does the Linux/GNU community do to make sure their tools are not used instead?

I can't speak for the entire community, but personally, I don't modify the system to order for censorship nor do I sell a support contract for that use.

Re:More than likely.

[wealthychef]

I said "a government that uses your products in a repressive manner." If you know your widgets will be used repressively, then try to avoid making that possible. Linux/GNU software is free and openly available, so there is nothing that CAN be done by definition to prevent China from using it, unless you have suggestion. They don't profit from it. Profiting from evil is taking blood money. By the way, I'm not suggesting no Chinese should be able to buy Windows. I'm suggesting that the Chinese government should not be sold technology that they will use to repress their people. Why is this so hard to understand? If MS is not doing so, then fine.

Re:More than likely.

[countertrolling]

You misspelled "buy"..

Re:More than likely.

[countertrolling]

What corporate responsibility?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the kind that could be written into its charter. You know, its license or privilege to operate in a fashion that protects its individuals from certain personal liabilities?

Re:More than likely.

[Vicegrip]

Google did the right thing, eventually. At the end of the day we are more than employees. We are citizens that benefit from freedoms hard earned. It is the utmost height of hypocrisy to then turn around and pretend there is nothing wrong with assisting the repression of people in foreign countries. One day, China may very well be the powerhouse of the world, western corporations' eagerness at supplying tools to assist Chinese repression will then come back to haunt us. Our failure to stand up against this hypocrisy will then have transformed into a failure to fight for our democratic rights.

Re:More than likely.

[geekoid]

" That my loyalty was to the company and I'd do what had to be done, even if I didn't like it."

Note to self:
GregHullender price on his principles is dirt cheat.

If you sell out your principles, did you ever really have them?

Why do you think you know all the aspects of the deal MS made with China? Are you in the executive meeting?

Re:More than likely.

[digitig]

And I'm saying that "repress their people" is not a naive black-and-white matter. Why is this so hard to understand?

Re:More than likely.

[wireloose]

Microsoft has a history of repressing the competition and its customers, and even of buying out members of standards committees to grab / keep marketshare. As a company, Microsoft shows no real ethics. Why would it start now?

Re:More than likely.

[Stormwatch]

Just out of interest, if there are problems with MS providing software to such governments, what does the Linux/GNU community do to make sure their tools are not used instead?

Well, during the Gaza War , Linux Mint developer Clement Lefebvre requested that the Israeli government and anyone who support its actions do not use his system.

Re:More than likely.

[init100]

if I were a Microsoft shareholder I would want Microsoft to be wanting to make inroads in to this market. Morals do not pay the bills.

Is there any limit to this? Let's take this a couple of steps further: If you were a shareholder in a company that sold torture devices you knew were used on the citizens of the buying country, or maybe tabulating machines you knew were used in a genocide, would you still choose money over morals, knowing that your company is actively supplying tools used to kill and/or mutilate people every day?

Re:More than likely.

[Anonymous Coward]

And where do you draw the line?

This is ever the problem, but how is that an excuse for not drawing it? More to the point, whatever you may think of the actions of the US, it is clear that China killing dissidents for advocating democracy will be on the wrong side of the line no matter where you draw it.

Just out of interest, if there are problems with MS providing software to such governments, what does the Linux/GNU community do to make sure their tools are not used instead?

There is little the community can do to stop a foreign government from using their software short of not distributing it. But there is a difference between supplying the public at large with general purpose tools that someone nefarious could use for something evil, and actively consorting with the evildoers to adapt the tools to their needs.

Re:More than likely.

[publiclurker]

Sound kind of one sided, but then again, I wasn't aware that you needed much software to make child sized suicide vests.

Re:More than likely.

[MasaMuneCyrus]

Realistically, if you're making the gas chambers then you have decided your moral position by the business you are in. If you are making the actual tools of killing then there's a case that you have a moral duty to take care over how they will be used. But the further you get from that then the more your moral responsibility is diluted, to the point where it's lost in the noise.

And that's exactly the issue, here. Most people likely wouldn't care if China was somehow using existing Microsoft services to send disinformation and propaganda to their citizens. It's the fact that China is saying, "Please modify your existing software so that it sends disinformation and propaganda to our citizens," and Microsoft is saying, "Ok, sure. What kind of censorship would you like us to make for you?"

Regarding the wagonmakers analogy -- it's upsetting, but not a big deal if Nazis are using a wagonmaker's wagons to transport Jews to a fiery death. That's not the wagonmaker's fault, necessarily. What Microsoft is doing, though, is making a Jew-transporting wagon that is engineered for the purpose of sending Jews to their fiery death.

Re:More than likely.

[digitig]

And where do you draw the line?

This is ever the problem, but how is that an excuse for not drawing it?

Not at all, but it means that you shouldn't think that where you draw it is the only morally valid place to draw it.

Re:More than likely.

[HeckRuler]

Yeah, wow! I mean, nothing against you Greg, and it's good you're retired from all that, but it's like hearing an SS guard coming forward.
And you PRE-EMPTIVLY came forward for a good bootlicking? Really?

Also, this reminds me of an age-old story. No programmer could ever ethically write a nukeHiroshima() function.
They would be forced by professional ethics to write a nuke(int city) function which could take Hiroshima as a parameter.

Re:More than likely.

[ultranova]

And what of the wagonmakers? Must they stop making wagons because of how some of their wagons are used? What about the wheelwrights and axlemakers?

No, you don't have to stop making wagons. Just stop cooperating with a dictator in order to sell him more wagons.

At some point along that line, it no longer becomes immoral to remain in business, even if you are aware that some of your products are being used in an utterly despicable manner.

However, it always remains immoral to side with a dictatorship to sell your products to them.

Nice strawman, thought.

Re:More than likely.

[orlanz]

No, here is the crux, they go out of business over time. Because someone else set up a business that sells to both sides, gets better economies of scale, and either lowers the price or just buys the other via higher profits.

Re:More than likely.

[BikeHelmet]

Hmm... high user ID. Might be a plant. :P

I'm guessing there's censorship going on, regardless of the public spin. It is Microsoft, after all. They love any deal that makes more money.

Re:More than likely.

[cynicist]

Morals do not pay the bills. As an individual would you (not the parent) be happy to content to contribute half your income for the rest of your life if it meant China was truly free and democratic? I doubt many would.

Some people realize there are more important things in this world than money.

Re:More than likely.

[nobodie]

You have hit the nail on the head. The Chinese idea of law is entirely alien to westerners. My favorite quote is from (as I remember it) Thomas Friedman at the NYTimes. Asking too many questions the official finally went to failsafe mode: "China is a country of law." This is true, but you must understand the crucial difference. Laws in China are not based on cases brought before a judge and/or jury. Laws in China are decided by rich plutocrats who control the legislative (communist party) the executive (communist party) and the judicial (communist party) branches of the government. In the old days (10 years ago) every company or any other organization had a president, who was any old figurehead. The second in command, the vice-president, had a seedy little office down the hall. That person was the Communist Party member. Their job was two-fold. First, they controlled the money. No money came in or went out without their consent. Second they controlled the "stamp". The stamp was the mark of an official decision. Similar to the signature of a president or CEO it makes things legal decisions. Nowadays even that flimsy excuse for a veil is gone. The party membership owns everything, decides everything and controls everything. They are the law and they are powerful and frightened. Read the news with these things in mind and you will understand China much better.

Are you kidding?

[mcgrew]

you've got people wondering: Is Microsoft aiming to take Google's place in China?"

Of course they are! What a dumb question.

Re:Are you kidding?

[sam0737]

steveb: It is my space, not just in China! Google was trying to take that. Well, nice try dude!

Of course

[Sarten-X]

Of course. Microsoft wants to take Google's place everywhere.

In China specifically, Microsoft can't pack up and leave like Google did. China's already a big target for their anti-piracy efforts Their only option is to play nice with the government and get cooperation, no matter how bad it really is.

Re:Of course

[gsslay]

pack up and leave like Google did

Except Google haven't. At least as yet.

Re:Of course

[cyfer2000]

"China's already a big target for their anti-piracy efforts"

I think the whole piracy issue in China is a marketing plot. A Chinese friend once told me Bill Gates said something like "As long as they (Chinese) are pirating our software, it is ok."

Re:Of course

[Rogerborg]

Microsoft wants to take everyone's everything everywhere forever, by absolutely any means possible

Fixed that for you.

Microsoft have "no option" other than to obey ze orders, you say? I call Godwin on that.

Re:Of course

[Greg Hullender]

Bill Gates made this comment at the new hire party I attended when I joined Microsoft in 1994, so I can vouch for its authenticity. I heard him say it with my own ears. However, it's worth noting that what he said, in full, was "As long as they're pirating software, we want them to be pirating ours. Sooner or later, as their economy develops, they'll switch to paying, and when that happens, ours will be what they'll want to buy."

I think China is developed enough to pay for software now, and I'm very sure Microsoft's anti-piracy efforts are genuine -- even though I haven't worked for Microsoft for two years now.

--Greg

Re:Of course

[Foofoobar]

China wants to take everyone's everything everywhere forever, by absolutely any means possible

Fixed THAT for you. Seems the immovable communist state is going to meet the unstoppable monopoly.

Re:Of course

[geekoid]

Once again showing the world that MS wouldn't be anywhere if it wasn't for piracy. How do you think it got into the home? people pirating from work.

Re:Of course

[seanthenerd]

Thanks for sharing! Your comments on this story are really interesting to read.

Panda Express ranked higher on Bing than Google!

[Orga]

MS is bribing senior Chinese officials by sticking MSG like code into their software

google's "do no evil" was ....

[h00manist]

... in contrast to who, and what attitude, did you think? ms always plays everything to get ahead, to it's advantage, legal, moral, ethical, technically smart, agreements compliant, ... or not.

MS+China

[Anonymous Coward]

Can there be a sweeter target than this? Microsoft + China, two most hated entity here.

maybe Ballmer sees his reflection in China

[Locutus]

Microsoft's business tactics and China's public policies have some overlap. Microsoft probably sees little wrong with how the Chinese government runs the country as shown by the Gates and Ballmer statements. They resemble each other.

LoB

Re:maybe Ballmer sees his reflection in China

[jhoegl]

I think Microsofts only critique of China is how Microsofts products are warezed and sold freely in China.

Re:maybe Ballmer sees his reflection in China

[Locutus]

funny, in 2006 they also said that they like this because it gets more people familiar and therefore addicted to Windows. Being two faced for the sake of business and profits don't you think? Anything goes.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropiracy9

LoB

Re:Ubuntu's alignment with MS's search engine

[BeShaMo]

Uhmm... no?

Re:Ubuntu's alignment with MS's search engine

[arevos]

I wonder if this will have any impact Ubuntu's recent announcement that they are switching to use Yahoo (which is Microsoft Bing underneath) as the default search engine in their next release.

Yahoo already has a history of rolling over for the Chinese government. If Canonical doesn't mind associating with a company that helps oppressive regimes track down dissidents, I don't think Microsoft's announcement is going to make much difference.

i will remember this

[h00manist]

that's just immoral. up to now i had mostly technical reasons i disliked microsoft. now, i have stonger ethical and moral reasons as well. i won't forget. that's just bordering on treason.

Re:i will remember this

[CSHARP123]

What do you mean then? Just don;t follow local laws. How about telcos sleeping with Govt on wire tapping in US? US has many craps like that too. India being a democratic country has many restrictions too. How about England, with all those security cameras invading people privacy in the name of security. How about airport strip search in US in the name of security. May be China is a extreme cases. Businesses should not get involved in this type of nonsense. What makes you think that majority of people in CHina do not support what their govt is setting up? It is up to the people to get what they want, they had a revolution to bring in communist rule to the country and they have the capacity to get rid of it too.

Re:i will remember this

[InlawBiker]

MS is a business, not a freedom fighter in the human rights movement. I supposed Ballmer could come out and take a stand and stop doing business with China. Only to see their stock price plummet. Then he'd be shown the door.

A lot of companies were overjoyed by Google's stand in China. It'll open the door for more business. This is just the first move in an orchestrated PR campaign to kiss China's ass.

Am I proud of the whoring, evil profit-above-all motives of our companies? Not especially... I noticed the other day that Google's founders are selling off their shares and could lose control of Google. I am terrified to think of what Google will become in the hands of Wall Street.

Re:i will remember this

[Anonymous Coward]

MS is a business, not a freedom fighter in the human rights movement.

If I can take this comment out of context for a second, I think we all have a responsiblity to protect freedom, for ourselves and for others. Problem is, most people don't realize that, or don't really care. Ballmer is probably the latter. I guess I am too.

Re:i will remember this

[Nemyst]

I don't think business and ethics absolutely are mutually exclusive.

Re:i will remember this

[geekoid]

"Only to see their stock price plummet. "

Based on what? Google's stock didn't.

Hey, maybe it's a good thing!

[blind biker]

You know Microsoft's strategy of embrace, extend, extinguish? Microsoft is embracing China's censorship and lack of social liberties. Let's hope they get to the "extinguish" phase, quick!

Re:Hey, maybe it's a good thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well. they have to go through the "Extend"-phase first, and that's sort of scary.

When will the Microsoft Re-education Suite hit the stores?

How about Microsoft Planned Economy? Now you only need one spreadsheet!

I don't buy it.

[MaWeiTao]

The important thing to keep in mind here is that Chinese by and large don't share the same mindset as Americans, that being that personal freedoms are more important than anything else. In fact, I don't think people in most Asian nations place value on personal freedoms to the extent Americans do. They'd much rather have a secure, stable society than appease to every little whim. China is no longer the absolute disaster that it was under Mao and China in many was has more of a free market economy than the US does. But in general limits on social freedoms is very consistent with Chinese and asian culture.

There have been politicians in Hong Kong fighting increased Chinese control over the territory and several have resigned in protest. It makes sense since Hong Kong was exposed to the West so extensively for so long. That said, I'm curious to know if the average citizen even cares. Taiwan, which surveys have found to have among the most open-minded people in Asia, share many of these same beliefs. Certainly, exposure to Western culture is slowly eroding some of these long-held ideals.

I do find it ridiculous that Sergey Brin would somehow be touched by this cause considering that the situation in China is nothing at all like the situation was in the USSR. The Chinese government today is communist in name only. It makes me wonder if Google isn't making all this up to avoid discussion of the real reasons for their leaving China.

Re:I don't buy it.

[jhoegl]

I agree, I am as outraged as Google at the lack of searchable porn in china.

Re:I don't buy it.

[SwedishPenguin]

But then what was the point of even entering the Chinese market? If they really had these high ideals, they would stop catering to other restrictive markets as well. In Germany, Nazi websites are censored by Google for instance. We may not like the Nazi websites, but if they really believed in the ideals that they say they do, they would leave Germany as well.

Re:I don't buy it.

[ElSupreme]

But a CAPITALIST that embraces a non-capitalist environtemt and makes a profit is NOT a hypocrite.

Re:I don't buy it.

[ThatsNotPudding]

China in many ways has more of a free market economy than the US does

Their environmental and public health records prove this to be true.

Re:I don't buy it.

[sp3d2orbit]

They'd much rather have a secure, stable society than appease to every little whim.

This is a fallacy. Authoritarian government do not promote secure, stable societies. They repress. They oppress. They don't allow people with grievances to air them or to hold the government accountable for their actions.

Authoritarian governments CREATE instability because they eliminate the safety valves that prevent small grievances from becoming revolts.

Re:I don't buy it.

[Yaa 101]

The Chinese government is one big cesspool of nepotism, ask many Chinese that were actually deported because their house was on a spot that was lucrative to the sons and daughters of the communist party officials.

China will break into a large and long lasting civil war sooner or later.

Re:I don't buy it.

[u38cg]

In fact, I don't think people in most Asian nations place value on personal freedoms to the extent Americans do.

This is tendentious bullshit. They haven't been asked, ut still they get jailed and executed for pushing for it.

Re:I don't buy it.

[gtall]

It is true to a certain extent in Japan that societal harmony has more of a hold than in, say, America. Japan is very homogeneous and outsiders are seen as disrupting this. That may come about by simply having their own island for a very long time, somewhat like a house with a few cats when a new one is introduced.

  I'm not sure about the other Asian countries. Culture is a touchy thing and I don't anyone would confuse the Chinese with the Japanese culture. It also is not clear to me that over time, the Japanese might not gravitate toward more individuality; it has not been that long since Emperor worship held sway.

It's the smart thing to do

[overshoot]

China is well on its way to being the largest market on the planet, and there doesn't seem to be much if anything on the horizon to challenge their ascendancy. Getting on board with them is just plain smart.

For more strategic advice, refer to Armand Hammer.

Microsoft is desperate for new revenue...

[QuietLagoon]

and is willing to sell the corporate soul to obtain it.

Re:Microsoft is desperate for new revenue...

[interval1066]

and is willing to sell the corporate soul to obtain it.

I agree, except to say that Microsoft has no soul to sell, making the sale that much easier. I think Krupp had the same easy path to collusion with the Nazis.

Stupid use of the word...

[IANAAC]

that's just bordering on treason.

A corporation, particularly multinational, has no concept of the word.

Re:Stupid use of the word...

[Grishnakh]

No, but the government does, and the government is owned by the corporations, so in effect, acting against the corporations that control the government can be considered treason.

Not at all like the USSR. Really!

[jjo]

"nothing at all like the situation was in the USSR". Yeah, right. There is no similarity whatsoever between the USSR and the PRC in the restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. Not the tiniest bit of similarity. As different as night and day. Chinese censorship is not at all like Soviet censorship. Brin must be certifiably insane if he perceives a parallel between the two.

Re:Not at all like the USSR. Really!

[MaWeiTao]

Say what you will, but most Chinese will disagree with you.

By no means am I suggesting it's all roses in China. But it's quite a stretch to suggest that China engages in anything on the level the Soviets did. China did plenty of that in the 50s and 60s and if they were still doing it they wouldn't be enjoying this economic boom.

Re:Not at all like the USSR. Really!

[jjo]

Whether a majority of Chinese accept the status quo is unknowable. The current rulers of China certainly do not believe they have such public support, since they suppress public political discourse and refuse to allow democratic elections.

If you asked that question of the political prisoners confined in horrendous conditions in Chinese prisons, I suspect you would find that they disagree with you.

i thought communism was anti-american

[brezel]

ah no wait, that was linux.

In China there are people and dollars

[uassholes]

M$ says: "Give us the dollars; fuck the people".

OK, fine. That's business.

Except that corporations (from Latin corpus meaning "body") enjoy a legal status as an entity, like a person. It should be possible for this legal entity ("body") to have a conscience. Some seem too, via the actions of their bosses. Maybe Google actually does.

M$ has shown time and time again that it does not.

I want to make an anology with Union Carbide. This is from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster:

The Bhopal disaster was an industrial catastrophe that took place at a pesticide plant owned and operated by Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India on December 3, 1984. Around 12 AM, the plant released methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas and other toxins, resulting in the exposure of over 500,000 people. Estimates vary on the death toll. The official immediate death toll was 2259 and the government of Madhya Pradesh has confirmed a total of 3787 deaths related to the gas release. Other government agencies estimate 15,000 deaths. Others estimate 8000 to 10,000 died within 72 hours and 25,000 have since died from gas-related diseases.

Some 25 years after the gas leak, 390 tonnes of toxic chemicals abandoned at the UCIL plant continue to leak and pollute the groundwater in the region and affect thousands of Bhopal residents who depend on it, though there is some dispute as to whether the chemicals still stored at the site pose any continuing health hazard. There are currently civil and criminal cases related to the disaster ongoing in the United States District Court, Manhattan and the District Court of Bhopal, India against Union Carbide, now owned by Dow Chemical Company, with an Indian arrest warrant pending against Warren Anderson, CEO of Union Carbide at the time of the disaster. No one has yet been prosecuted.

Wikipedia also has an article on "corporate social responsibility": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility

Re:It's quite simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ballmer's favorite tool, his Herman Miller Aeron Graphite Chair (medium size, C, if you are curious) has a frame developed in China.

Ballmer specifically picked it out for its aerodynamic properties.

Bing is also a Chinese personal name

[ElmoGonzo]

Other than that it's just a way to remember the insurance salesman from Groundhog Day

Being Evil - Just Part of the Business Plan

[careysub]

With Google "Don't be evil" is a shibboleth that sets an aspirational goal which, as so often happens in the real world, may only be honored in the breech.

With Microsoft "being evil" is, and has always been, at the core of their whole business model.

Re:Being Evil - Just Part of the Business Plan

[pandrijeczko]

With Google "Don't be evil" is a shibboleth that sets an aspirational goal which, as so often happens in the real world, may only be honored in the breech.

IANAL but I thought a shibboleth was a Lovecraftian horror monster from my AD&D days, then I remembered it's actually an aboleth.

However an aboleth is a malevolent slimy eel creature, so I guess the comparison to Microsoft is probably quite sound...

not all that bad

[countertrolling]

Yeah really... they're not killing anybody, just breaking their kneecaps. I mean c'mon!

Do you want me to slow down?? Or do you want me to stop?!

Censorship? Really?

[mpapet]

Microsoft will cooperate as long as they have a shot at public sector revenue. This is hardly unique to China. If the nation of Venezuela wanted Microsoft products, they'd take their money.

I think American crossed the line into full-scale hipocracy(sp!!) by calling China out on censorship. The Chinese are more overt, but the effects are the same.

How about killing prisoners at Guantanamo? http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368 How was that story handled?? I'd argue that's a pretty serious situation and yet, somehow the mainstream media won't touch it. The title AP gave it was "Harper's questions three Guantanamo deaths." Somehow, prisoners under 24/7 observation are able to stuff rags down their throats AND THEN hang themselves? There's room for 'a question?' http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-18-guantanamo-deaths_N.htm?csp=34

How about the *massive* transfer of weath orchestrated by the Fed and Treasury? It's a 'bailout.' Maiden Lane 3 somehow generates profits in a way obvious to exactly no one. GM's debt holders got barely pennies on the dollar depending on their debt senority and yet AIG's counter parties got every single cent back. And the headline is "this is troubling" ?? http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2010/db2010018_994080.htm

Let's go back a few years to Sibel Edmonds story that *no* media would touch.

I missed the part where the American Republic was a bastion of Freedom.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[delinear]

The one that doesn't get firewalled by the government for failure to comply with their censorship laws?

You are allowed to write it.

[tjstork]

The USA is the bastion of freedom. The difference between the USA and China, is that, in the USA, you can say whatever you want. Like, you talk about Gitmo, but you are allowed to level your charges. Whether other people believe you is not the deal. In China, or Iran, or any other number of places, people are really being oppressed and really being killed. IT's just not the same to compare the real struggle for freedom in despotic regimes with the desire of some losers in the USA to get attention with outrageous blog posts.

Re:You are allowed to write it.

[mpapet]

but you are allowed to level your charges. Whether other people believe you is not the deal.
Fair point. I hadn't thought of it that way. So, what's your reason for categorizing the examples as lunatic rambling? I'm serious here. Because I don't get it. Do you like your money taken from you by your government? You think some bad guys probably dying at the hand of your government is good? Despotic regimes do the same thing.

the real struggle for freedom
Believe it or not, I'm sure we actually agree on lots of principals. I think we'd agree to disagree on how those principals are turned into action though.

What is 'real' and what is 'freedom?' A Republic that has clearly capitulated to banking and oligopolists is 'real' and 'free?' I'd like to know how you define this 'real freedom' versus your most despised 'non-free' place.

really being killed.
Those deaths at Gitmo look like killing to me. What about all that killing in Iraq where the WMD's and Al Qaeda never were? CIA's secret prison facilities? Despotic regimes have secret prisons too. They torture and kill just like the Americans. How do you clearly distinguish between American secret prisons, torture, deaths and another with no moral ambiguity whatsoever? That's a serious question, not flamebait.

Re:You are allowed to write it.

[tjstork]

t is written by a Columbia Law School professor and human rights lawyer and appears to be very well researched.

columbia Law School professor, that is the epitomy of loser in my book.

Re:You are allowed to write it.

[tjstork]

You'll have to enlighten me, I'm a computer geek not a lawyer, why does that make him a loser? So I assume you can do better?

Columbia is a breeding ground for left wing, extreme radicals. They may be well versed in law, but their politics and outlook on life is so much of a dramatic assault on mine that frankly I would as foolish as a Chamberlin if I tried to compromise or hear them out. I cannot have the luxury that they would be honest, as most radicals are not, nor believe that they are even handed. IT's just silly to even bother to listen to someone like that.

The corporate foolishness

[tjstork]

Is that, the Communist Revolution in China is essentially lawless. The whole idea of a corporation requires that laws actually exist and be consistently enforced. You have to have property rights, speech rights, indeed, human rights for corporations to happen, otherwise, they too can be randomly jailed and seized - witness what's going on in Venezuela. So, really, Microsoft and Walmart and other China collaborators are really just hoping that the current personalities in China will be consistent, and they are foolish if they think those hopes are anything more than risky hopes.

Hi I'm Clippy!

[jDeepbeep]

Looks like you're deciding on a family planning strategy!

Would you like help?
[] Get more info on the one-child policy.
[] Get more info on the one-child policy.

If you know your history...

[Lead Butthead]

I am sure IBM didn't see anything wrong with Nazi Germany either.

Re:Censorship? Really?

[MozeeToby]

Even if the mainstream media never covered it, the difference is still enormous. For one thing, you can still find those articles on the internet, something you wouldn't be able to do in China if it were the Chinese government. For another thing, the writers of those articles aren't arrested, kidnapped, torchured, killed, or harvested for organds. If you really don't see the difference... I don't even know what to say.

Re:Ubuntu's alignment with MS's search engine

[GameboyRMH]

You know, I just can't look at Canonical/Ubuntu the same way any more. It's like Slipknot after the Coq Roq lawsuit...

So, self-regulation is a fantasy?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Thanks for making it so clear that there is no hope for self-regulation at all. The only hope to keep companies behaving even the slightest therefor must come from government control. Nothing like a honest capitalist to make clear the need for government interference.

Re:So, self-regulation is a fantasy?

[soupd]

I honestly struggle to find an example where self regulation, where it is even possible, has not been abused. Public companies have a responsibility to shareholders - like it or lump it. How many shareholders really take an interest in the ethics or morals of the board as long as the dividends keep rolling in? As for Government 'interference', do you think it's in USG's interest to regulate Microsoft's potential courting of China as market? I'd wager that USG would be more interested in the possibility of exploiting whatever relationship Microsoft may be able to build.

Re:So, self-regulation is a fantasy?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only hope to keep companies behaving even the slightest therefor must come from government control.

Seeing the ineffectiveness of government regulation curtailing corporations, I'm holding out to see how effective angry, torch-bearing mobs are.

As for capitalists, I most definitely am one but corporations owe their existence to government regulation. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Any government created entity has no business insisting on being unregulated, particularly those with a product that depends on regulation for it's existence, like banks, copyright bases businesses etc.

Individuals, on the other hand, born of nature not by law ought to be left unregulated as far as possible. And no, a corporation is not just a collection of individuals, it is a separate entity as established by law.

Re:So, self-regulation is a fantasy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but do you really want the government running companies if someone like Sarah Palin gets into power?

Re:So, self-regulation is a fantasy?

[orlanz]

But the least corrupt governments are just entities with massive costs and power that are mostly controlled by special interest groups and .... companies. I mean, forget foreign corrupt governments, just look at most of the bills that get passed around our US government. They are titled one thing, but in the "fine print" intend something else, many times, the opposite.

Sorry, that is a lie

[SmallFurryCreature]

MS is NOT selling its soul in China for revenue. You cannot sell what you do not have. Ballmer and Gates have no morals. Oh, they are not evil, that takes a commitment. They just have absolutely no moral compass whatsoever. Look at how Bill Gates does his charity work, always with an angle to somehow better MS. It is the way he thinks.

And before you defend him, remember that is a LOT easier to have morals if you are rich. If MS pulled out of China what would happen to these two guys? Absolutely nothing. They ain't doing this to survive, they are doing it for yet another billion whose difference they will never ever notice.

Re:Sorry, that is a lie

[gtall]

I think, more accurately, Gates and Ballmer cannot sell what they've already sold.

No it isn't

[Kupfernigk]

The GDP of China is overtaking Japan, which has a twelfth of the population. It is nowhere near the EU or the US, and its profligate and uneconomic use of resources suggests that it will before long be limited by its own inefficiencies. We do not know how much of the Chinese claimed growth is real, because the figures are produced by a State which consistently lies. The fact that bankers and investors believe something proves nothing: those dimwits were taken in by the property bubble in the English-speaking world. We know they are incompetent at finding inconvenient facts.

China may become the world's biggest economy. In 1939 a lot of people thought that Germany would become the world's biggest economy. But saying it "is" is unsupported by any real evidence.

Re:Censorship? Really?

[TeknoHog]

I think American crossed the line into full-scale hipocracy(sp!!)

I believe the correct spelling is "hippocracy", if you mean a nation ruled by large semi-aquatic mammals.

Re:Censorship? Really?

[mpapet]

For another thing, the writers of those articles aren't arrested

I really do mean to burst your world view bubble because reporters most certainly are jailed in the U.S.

http://www.judithmiller.com/537/reporter-jailed-after-refusing-to-name-source

Killing and torture is no longer the difference between Good American Free and Axis of Evil Free.

Is it the case that 'organ harvesting,' is the delineation between a good free and a bad free? I want to know where the line is for you. It's not a flamebait question.

Plantation owners defended their slaves too.

[edfardos]

Exploiting the population of communist totalitarianism is the slavery of the new millennium. The cotton plantation owners said the exact same thing when it came to defending their slaves. I hope 200,000 americans don't die as we repeat this cycle of history. Please end free-trade with non-free countries. --edfardos

Microsoft does business in the US, doesn't it?

[revjd909]

It's whether it should do business with a government that will use your products in a repressive manner. A wagonmaker could probably sell his wagons to someone who does not kill its own citizens for their ethnicity and still remain in business. But here is the crux. It won't quite make as much money. And the pure lust for profit is what is objectionable here.

This is a slippery slope. China has human rights violations, but then again so does the US. There are over a million people of color in America in PRISON because of the so-called "War on Drugs" which is executed with a discriminatory bias, where white people (and people of the upper class) get off scot-free, or never even get harassed in the first place. Should MS and other companies pull out of doing business in the US until it gives up the war on drugs?

Re: Google's arrogance is AWESUME

[doug20r]

A company built on vapour sucking in huge amounts of money selling a lie that has grown to such heights it tries to dictate international politics. Awesome!

google is no better

[Shompol]

So while Chinese govt has to hack their way in to fish for dissidents, US Govt can just waltz in and get any records they want (read: no warrant required).

Eric Schmidt: "If you have something [to hide], maybe you shouldn't be doing it"

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=983717

Re:google is no better (correction)

[Shompol]

There you have it: we have Patriot Act, and Chinese do not, so they had to resort to hacking.

http://blogs.gartner.com/jeffrey_mann/2009/12/18/googles-eric-schmidt-needs-media-training-not-a-privacy-spanking/

Q: People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?

A: I think judgement matters If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.”

Pedantic Police Warning

[zooblethorpe]

I think American crossed the line into full-scale hipocracy(sp!!)

I believe the correct spelling is "hippocracy", if you mean a nation ruled by large semi-aquatic mammals.

Actually, the large semi-aquatic mammals aren't in the picture. The word "hippopotamus" is made up of hippo, coming from the Greek for "horse" (as in 'hippodrome'), and potamus, or "river" (as in 'Mesopotamia'). Hence, a (or 'an', depending) hippocracy would be a nation ruled by horses. Which we've almost had in history, if memory serves, when the mad Roman emperor Caligula had his horse appointed as a senator.

Cheers,

Re:Panda Express ranked higher on Bing than Google

[gtall]

That explains the headache I get every time I use MS Malware.

and then there's the hippocratic oath

[circletimessquare]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

which is the oath taken by equine senators upon taking office. i think

SCOTUS Sez

[nightcats]

If as SCOTUS determined this week, the corporation is a person with 1st amendment rights, then it must also have a conscience. Can't have one without the other, I should think. That goes for MS and for Intel too.

RTFP

[overshoot]

Missed the reference to Armand Hammer, didn't you?