Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Admits to Secretly Paying for "Independent" Ads
This has been submitted a fair amount, although it came out on the 18th. Microsoft has admitted to paying for ads from a California insitute. The institue, The Independent Institute got 240 academic experts to sign a document saying that the anti-trust case was bad for the consumer. Basically, it appears that the Institute ran the ads, while Microsoft reimbursed them for the cost of placing the ads, and the travel involved. Mmm...dirty tricks.
For immediate release
Microsoft, a large technology company based in Redmond, WA, today announced Independent2000, a new suite designed to objectively evaluate Microsoft products and corporate moves.
Steve Ballmer, president of Microsoft, stated, "We feel that it is in the best interests of our customers to do a truly objective self-analysis. This should prove to any and all critics that Microsoft is dedicated to improving competition in the marketplace."
The new program suite will monitor MSN.com, Microsoft.com, and other web sites for news about the technology giant and condense product reviews found there for a fair, unbiased comparison. The product will be hitting shelves with an estimated street price of around US$249.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
Not bad. A self-proclaimed independent institute claims MS never gave them more than "$10,000 per year, like our other 2000 members" and "the ads were paid out of our general funds". But the truth comes out! Microsoft paid them over $150,000 in compensation for the ads!
Microsoft is not "just a software company".
Look at what they did to Borland. Renting a floor of a hotel nearby, inviting their technical staff, and having recruiters handy to brain-drain them. Illegal, and they settled out of court, near the end of the trial.
Stac? A signed contract to use Stac with DOS. Instead, they copied chunks of the source verbatim, released their own compression scheme, and claimed the contract was void. Once again, MS settles out of court near the end of a lengthy trial.
Sun? Java? We know all about that one.
They are other examples.
Microsoft is a criminal organization, run by a megalomaniac, intent on controlling the minds of everyone on the planet. With hopes to someday control the minds of other planets!
Harsh, overboard statement? They are criminal, I already stated three big cases. Unconvicted, but they paid dearly to maintain their "innocence".
Bill Gates? A megalomaniac? Look it up.
Mind control? One gui, one method of accessing information, and a company that has already been caught altering facts in their dictionaries when such facts contradicted the "Microsoft Vision". Suppose a child sees nothing but MS screens, clickables, and doctored information day one through adulthood? Arguably, there could be a profound psychological backdrop to such a thing.
Other planets? Heh, they've pretty much got this one wrapped up unless the US gov. can rise above corruption, bribery and influence and lay the smack down on Billy the Borg.
If not, it's going to be up to the rest of the world to band together, and improve Linux to the point where it can kill off the beast.
Does this mean a bunch of MS tesimony is tainted and can be thrown out?
The Constitution give the people the right to free speech. Microsoft is not a "people", it is a corporation. It is financially considered a person, but not so in the strictest legal sense. Microsoft cannot vote, nor can it be arrested or imprisoned. It is not a person.
None of this stops Bill Gates from saying whatever he wants and using his personal fortune to get the message out, but neither Microsoft nor any other corporation has inherant rights as outlined by the Bill of Rights.
Congress has the right to legislate this and other marketing activities (like current regs on tobacco and drug advertising) because it has the right to regulate interstate commerce. You could argue that such restrictions do not apply to sole proprietorships (where the company is the owner), but not for a corporation.
The concept of a corporation is really a legal divorce between the owner(s) and the company, where the owner(s) declare that they are not the company. This gives them certain protections, the most important being that the owners are no longer personally responsible for financial obligations of the company. In response, the company no longer is an extension of the person but becomes its own legal entity (though not a person).
Obviously, if there are no laws that prohibit Microsoft's actions, they can do them by default. However, if there are such prohibitions (possibly contempt of court, obstruction of justice, or something similar), they cannot hide behind the right to free speech.
--The basis of all love is respect
I think everyone at Slashdot is jumping to conclusions. Microsoft would never undermind a research study! They would not try to spin the results in its own interests. Come on people!
(This advertisment was paid for by Microsoft)
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
Well, clearly "independent" means something different in Microsoft's vocabulary. Mindcraft was "independent" too. They also experienced having their name dragged thru the mud. If Microsoft keeps ruining these "independent" organizations, there may not be one available when they need one someday.
The full page ad in the NYT was brought up in the anti-trust trial. Interesting to speculate whether perjury occurred, or if the judge could decide part of Microsoft's case was no longer credible as a result.
No need to topple Microsoft, I think, just stand back, they're doing quite well all on their own. Does one yell "Software!" when a behemoth starts to fall?
Is there an equivalent offense under US law, and have Microsoft committed it?