Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Demands Freedom to Innovate
Christopher Bibbs writes "Microsoft is trying once again to rally the troops and let Congress know that the American people want them to back off. They also have a pretty funny letter to the shareholders over here." The shareholder letter says, "Regardless of your perspective, this tool will allow you to share your views, send a letter or email to your elected officials..." There's also an invitation to "call us at 1-888-642-4097." Remember, polite comments do more good than nasty ones, regardless of your perspective. ;-)
[DEEP BREATH] Ahhh...well. I think that people are being a bit harsh on Microsoft. I won't deny that I dislike their operating systems, and, to be honest, just about all their software apart from Age of Empires.
Limitations on Microsoft's activities should be the same as would be applied to any company. They should not be a special case. Although they have had a few (ahem!) shady practises, their virtual monopoly isn't entirely their fault. Certainly, very few hardware companies had the balls to stand up to them, even though it's clear that if they'd banded together they could have limited MS influence. There's also the practise of companies buying MS goods to consider. There have always been alternatives to NT for instance; ones which have been proven reliable over time. If a company then chooses to switch, simply because MS says it's for the best (what do you expect them to say?!) then it's their own fault when they get caught up in the Upgrade Cycle of Death.
One thing MS did do was make plenty software easily available to the masses. Windows (even NT) is pretty cheap compared to much of its competition. You might even argue that Linux (with GNU) is the next step in the Software for the People movement, providing affordable open software for anyone who wants it.
I guess the point is, people do have a choice now. Linux is a viable alternative. Go a bit easier on MS.
Phew. A post from me supporting MS. I'm away for a spot of skiing in Hell.
dylan_-
--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
The only thing that has to be done is break Microsoft up in to parts:
- one part that makes OS-es
- one part that makes applications
If there was Microsoft Office for Linux and Beos and (fill in youre favourite os) then the part that of Microsoft that makes OS-es would really have to innovate and compete on the basis of features for the OS.
It's the combination of making an OS and the applications that makes the "monopoly".
Joost
Dear Senator or Representative (personalized for each recipient):
I am writing at the invitation of Microsoft to express my opinion on their anti-trust trial.
I most certainly expect the anti-trust laws and other regulations that apply across the economy to all industries would be applied to an industry as large and important as the software industry. As a software professional, I found Microsoft's arguments insulting--to my intelligence and to Judge Jackson's.
Clearly, they tied their browser into the operating system to make it impossible for Netscape and others to compete. If it were not a separate component, how could they produce the identical product for the Macintosh, where they have no control over the operating system?
Clearly, they have monopoly power over the manufacturers of Intel-based PCs. It is only because of the previous consent decree and the publicity generated by this trial that PC manufacturers have been able to start distributing new PC's with other operating systems like Linux. The government's pursuit of this trial has allowed Microsoft's customers and competitors to go after new businesses and technologies free from the threat of reprisal.
Microsoft wants freedom to innovate. Copying a competitor's software product and using your monopoly over the operating system to ensure free distribution of the copy is not innovation. It's anti-competitive and unfair. True innovation comes about when the basic rules of fair commerce are respected and enforced. Microsoft's lack of respect for the law and its officers is an embarassment to the entire industry.
MS isn't part of "the community" of Open Source.
;-)
In fact, they are the opposition to everything that Open Source stands for and tries to do. They don't care about quality or open standards, but just want to increase the value of their stock options! They're a parasite on computing.
I sent M$ a polite but stiff note. However, here's what I sent all the links for my reps (in my case, Clinton, Feinstein, Boxer, and Cox), and I'd encourage everyone who replies to Microsoft to also write their Senators and Representives with similar messages. Don't let them prevail!
"I'm using a website Microsoft put up to provide their faithful easy access to their legislators.
However, I'm using it to oppose any attempt to let Microsoft off the hook for their criminal past of lies, outright theft, and other patently illegal practices. Resist their MS apologists!
In my opinion, Microsoft should be tarred and feathered and run out of this country on a rail.
Best regards,"
As they say in Chicago, vote early and often.
News just in of Microsoft's latest venture
Contraceptive99 by Microsoft
Microsoft Corporation has taken another step toward dominating every aspect of
American life with the introduction of Contraceptive98, a suite of applications
designed for users who engage in sex. Microsoft has been a pioneer in
peer-to-peer connectivity and plug and play.
It believes these technologies will give it substantial leverage in penetrating the
copulation enhancement market. The product addresses two important user
concerns: the need for virus protection and the need for a firewall to ensure the
non-propagation of human beings.
The Contraceptive99 suite consists of three products:
Condom99
DeFetus 1.0 (from Sementec)
AIDScan 2.1 (from Norton Utilities)
A free copy of Intercourse Explorer 4.0 is bundled in the package. The suite also
comes in two expanded versions. Contraceptive99 Professional is the Client/Server
edition, for professionals in the sexual services sector. Contraceptive99 Small
Business Edition is a package for startups, aimed at the housewife and gigolo
niches.
While Contraceptive99 does not address nontraditional copulatory channels, future
plug-ins are planned for next year.
OPERATION: Only one node in a peer-to-peer connection needs to install the
package.
At installation, the Condom99 software checks for minimum hardware. If the user
meets the requirements, the product installs and is sufficiently scaleable to meet
most requirements. After installation, operation commences. One caution is that the
user must have sufficient RAM to complete the session. When the session is
complete, a disconnect is initiated, and the user gets the message, it is now safe to
turn off your partner.
DRAWBACKS: Usability testers report that frequent failures were a major
concern during beta testing. General Protection Fault was the most serious error
encountered. Early versions had numerous bugs, but most of these have been
eliminated. The product needs to be installed each time its used.
CONCLUSION: Contraceptive99 is a robust product. Despite its drawbacks, it
is reasonably good value for its $49.95 price tag, and is far superior to its
shareware version. Hopefully, future releases (of the software, that is) will add
missing functionality, such as Backout and Restore, uninterruptible Power Supply,
and Onboard Camera.
Microsoft flounder Bill Gates is optimistic about this venture, saying "Our
contraceptive products will help users do to each other what we've been doing to
our customers for years."
superblog.org: all your favourite blogs on o
Has anyone noticed that "FIN" is French for "end"?
Who's denying it to them anyway? They claim a right that they deny others with their strategy of crushing smaller competitors. Non of their current products has technical advantages over its competitors. Some of these products are of high quality some aren't ('innovations' in this area are welcome as far as I'm concerned).
The things they claim are innovations are not. The two most important ones are:
- browser integration
- java API modifications
The first is a very obvious and rather succesful attempt to outcompete other browsers.
The second is violating SUN's license. In other words they stole somebodies idea and are now trying to push the real innovator (SUN) out of the market.
For all you MS haters/lovers, I have this nice ZDNet link
Jilles
"The FIN is a non-partisan,grassroots network of citizens and businesses "
Can something be grassroot and still be organized by a company with enough money to run the economy of a small country?
Freedom, freedom, freedom. For some twisted reason the freedom-card is most often pulled by an abuser. Spammers rage about freedom of (sic)speach, fundamentals about freedom of religion, nationalists about freedom in general, US government about free world and now Microsoft about freedom to innovate.
What's common with these all? Only they have the freedom but if you disagree with them, they go crazy and demand you to drop all your own freedom and personal choice.
Let's have a look at Microsoft. They are rich, powerful and big. There shouldn't be any problems for them to innovate. Just use enough money and brain power and come up with new revolutionary products. It shouldn't be a problem for them to make a browser and compete fairly in the free market.
But for Microsoft freedom is bad. Freedom to choose is bad because customers may choose the wrong product. So the competitor has to be crushed and what's a better way to do it than waving the flag of freedom?
Dear Senator or Representative (personalized for each recipient):
I'm writing you as a consequence of a web page (http://www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/) set up by Microsoft corporation to encourage innovation in the software industry. This is a laudable goal, although I'm surprised to see it supported by Microsoft. Microsoft is not widely regarded as an innovative force in the software industry. Rather than designing, implementing, and releasing innovative products at a competitive price, Microsoft has instead chosen to consolidate its position in the industry by threatening, colluding against, and sometimes outright buying its competitors while providing substandard products in terms of security, usability, and compatibility with accepted technical standards. By doing so, they have captured 90% of the market for desktop computer software in this country, and 25-33% of the market for server software.
If a car company acted in this manner, or perhaps the telephone company, you can bet that they would be under investigation by Federal and state anti-trust regulators. And as it turns out, Microsoft _is_ under investigation as well by the US Department of Justice (DOJ). Although it appears that Microsoft set up their "Freedom to Innovate" site in order to marshal grass-roots support for their position in the DOJ's case against them, I am using the site to send you the opposite message: please ensure freedom to innovate in the software industry for _all companies_ by supporting the DOJ case against Microsoft. Only when the software industry is free from fear of reprisals by Microsoft can true innovation occur.
Innovation is already starting to happen - for example, many computer makers such as IBM, Dell, and Compaq have begun to offer Linux as an option on their machines as their customers have demanded. Do you think that they would have been allowed to do this by Microsoft if the trial were not occurring? In the past Microsoft has threatened computer makers with being blacklisted from selling Microsoft windows on their machines if they also sold products from Microsoft's competition, such as Netscape. Please encourage this recent trickle of innovation to become the torrent that our nation needs - support the DOJ in their efforts to get a just verdict and reasonable remedies for the harm Microsoft has done the software industry.
Thank you for your time,
etc., etc.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I wholeheartedly agree. Microsoft should have a freedom to innovate. But remember that freedom to innovate != freedom to dominate. I remember a time in the early and mid 80's when I actually respected Microsoft for innovating. Sure, their products may not have been completely original but they were trying to open computing to the masses...and that was still a new idea.
The problem is that MS has gone from innovator to dominator, and they are slowly strangling the computer industry. MS essentially sees all other software companies as competition, and rather than compete, MS would rather buy or crush them. If you look closely at Microsofts history, you'll find dozens of software companies that have been bought out, and hundreds of products or ideas that have either been "borrowed" or blatantly stolen. MS doesn't compete, it destroys.
The hipocrisy of Microsofts statement is that they want to keep their dominance of the computer industry, but the lack of competition stifles innovation. Microsoft knows this, and they want this. Innovation is Microsofts worst enemy. The Internet was a major innovation in computer communication. The OSS movement is a huge innovation in software distribution. Java was a big innovation in the war against platorm dependence. Fact is, every time another "innovation" occurs MS is forced to fight even harder to maintain it's position. MS isn't interested in innovation, this is just a desperate shot by a company that has finally realized that it's days are numbered.
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
You should really read "The Microsoft File" by Wendy Goldman. You would find out that:
They invite companies to their campus with the lure that they want to buy them and their technology. They get the company to sign "sharing" agreements where they show MS all their secrets and source code. MS then says, sorry, we aren't interested, steals the ideas and builds their own product. Most of these companies are too small to mount a legal challened in court and disappear within a year or two of their MS meeting.
They openly forced most large computer sellers like Compaq and Dell to pay for windows for each and every computer they sold, even if the customer wanted a "blank" machine with no OS.
They forced most large computer sellers to bundle MS Office with Windows 95, actually charging more for just widnows 95 than for windows 95 and MS office. Ever wonder why Office is the dominant suite in the market? MS gave it away long enough to establish a lead, then hopped up the price once the competition was mostly dead.
When people were first signing up for early development kits, they had to sign forms stating they would not develop applications for other "drag and drop" interfaces with the Microsoft tools. At the time there were several alternative OLE like options, most of which were far nicer than the on in WIN32 (what a cranky, buggy interface to program).
Microsoft got where it is today by strong arming the cometition and abusing its monopoly power, whether you can see it or not.
If a Japanese firm acted like Microsoft, we'd have stopped them long ago, but because they are an American company, they have gotten away with this too long. Please stop them now before it's too late.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
REDMOND (Reuters).
In a surprise announcement today, Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) threatened to create innovative products. "Our customers have said they want innovation," said a Microsoft spokesperson. "We will now make innovative products."
According to analysts, this could send shock waves through the PC industry. "We rely on them to follow our code of honor," said a disgruntled industry leader, who preferred to remain anonymous. "We've been making the same hardware for 20 years. What will we do now?" According to an analyst, there is no skepticism in an industry used to a flood of vaporware announcements. "We have had many false alarms from Microsoft before," said the Anonymous Analyst. "However, this time they are REALLY serious."
A key distinguishing feature this time around is a stunning move by Microsoft to create a 'Freedom to Innovate Network', known as FIN.
Many industry observers pointed out the resemblence to a previous Microsoft initiative. "Earlier, they had formed a top secret organization called 'Freedom to Innovate Bugs', and guess how that turned out," said another insider. "Naturally, we can't dismiss this as vaporware. The coincidence is practically spooky." Especially the acronym, he added.
Microsoft spokesmen declined to comment on backward compatibility problems with the new trend towards innovation.
---
L.