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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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

[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

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.

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: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.

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!

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.

[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 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.

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: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: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.

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.

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: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.

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: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:i will remember this

[geekoid]

"Only to see their stock price plummet. "

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

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,