I wonder if Microsoft should be obligated to release what could be considered "trade secrets" of it's product(s). It's true that, in terms of progressive growth, Microsoft gains many advantages by "lending a helping hand" to product manufacturers, but certainly no viability exists in trade for a company that makes it easier for it's competitors to do better, cheaper. McDonald's certainly would not be willing to hand over it's process for french fries to any of it's competitors... as would Levi's jeans be understandably reluctant to hand over work-flow plans to Calvin Klein in hopes they develop a better product, cheaper and quicker. It's hard to fault a guy who, for the most part, uses his brain to find ways of accomplishing the goals he likes. But it's equally hard to find justice in the fact that lots of toes were stepped on during the process. Surely there is a middle-ground here -- what could it be, though? The stakes are so high now, who has the authority to say what?
I think this is a pretty clearly cut and dried case of what happens to a company that, through intentional tactics, manages to obtain an unfairly large slice of the economic pie. Reeling, the small guys take some time to catch back up; but when they do -- they all have their hands out. There must be a built in measure of balance somewhat in the world of economics. The really ensconched players in the big picture, like the big tobacco companies, manage to fend off their demise with "good 'ole boy" tactics, which for some reason fail to work with what most of us associate to be the "next generation", which is why the sudden attack and vicious wounding in that segment of --firmly rooted-- american agriculture, history and industry, has taken place. But everybody "played ball", so to speak, so the progression of the "business" continued for an extended period of time. Microsoft, on the other hand, seems repeatedly to be accused of being unwilling to "play ball" with anyone -- my way or the highway, said with a growl in the gruff. The old ways don't work anymore, nor have they worked for some time. That, more importantly than most other factors I can think of, seems to be the ailment at Microsoft. The transition from one set of generational standards to the next -- and the resulting clash thereafter -- is obviously an important factor within the overall picture thus far in the legal actions brought against Microsoft. It's been a sea of change within an ocean of change since 1979 and I'm hard-pressed for an argument to the negative that what Microsoft did was understand better the concept of what a computer could become than the other guys at the time. And, if any of the other guys did happen to understand a couple of extra pieces of the vision, Microsoft assimilated the technology and did the stuff that Microsoft does to make it popular, and fill the coffers, which fueled the ideal, which filled the coffers, which gave more than a few folks one damn nice living. The trouble is -- the equivalent of hyennas have moved into the area. Microsft, being obsessed with a vision and the desire to be the king regardless of the consequences, has now found that, as with what appear to be many other laws of balance that exist in any identifiable system, being the king is undeseriable with no loyal subjects. As within another realm of instinctual competition, the pack is beginning to organize their attack. What will the king do?
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if Microsoft should be obligated to release what could be considered "trade secrets" of it's product(s). It's true that, in terms of progressive growth, Microsoft gains many advantages by "lending a helping hand" to product manufacturers, but certainly no viability exists in trade for a company that makes it easier for it's competitors to do better, cheaper. McDonald's certainly would not be willing to hand over it's process for french fries to any of it's competitors ... as would Levi's jeans be understandably reluctant to hand over work-flow plans to Calvin Klein in hopes they develop a better product, cheaper and quicker. It's hard to fault a guy who, for the most part, uses his brain to find ways of accomplishing the goals he likes. But it's equally hard to find justice in the fact that lots of toes were stepped on during the process. Surely there is a middle-ground here -- what could it be, though? The stakes are so high now, who has the authority to say what?
I think this is a pretty clearly cut and dried case of what happens to a company that, through intentional tactics, manages to obtain an unfairly large slice of the economic pie. Reeling, the small guys take some time to catch back up; but when they do -- they all have their hands out. There must be a built in measure of balance somewhat in the world of economics. The really ensconched players in the big picture, like the big tobacco companies, manage to fend off their demise with "good 'ole boy" tactics, which for some reason fail to work with what most of us associate to be the "next generation", which is why the sudden attack and vicious wounding in that segment of --firmly rooted-- american agriculture, history and industry, has taken place. But everybody "played ball", so to speak, so the progression of the "business" continued for an extended period of time. Microsoft, on the other hand, seems repeatedly to be accused of being unwilling to "play ball" with anyone -- my way or the highway, said with a growl in the gruff. The old ways don't work anymore, nor have they worked for some time. That, more importantly than most other factors I can think of, seems to be the ailment at Microsoft. The transition from one set of generational standards to the next -- and the resulting clash thereafter -- is obviously an important factor within the overall picture thus far in the legal actions brought against Microsoft. It's been a sea of change within an ocean of change since 1979 and I'm hard-pressed for an argument to the negative that what Microsoft did was understand better the concept of what a computer could become than the other guys at the time. And, if any of the other guys did happen to understand a couple of extra pieces of the vision, Microsoft assimilated the technology and did the stuff that Microsoft does to make it popular, and fill the coffers, which fueled the ideal, which filled the coffers, which gave more than a few folks one damn nice living. The trouble is -- the equivalent of hyennas have moved into the area. Microsft, being obsessed with a vision and the desire to be the king regardless of the consequences, has now found that, as with what appear to be many other laws of balance that exist in any identifiable system, being the king is undeseriable with no loyal subjects. As within another realm of instinctual competition, the pack is beginning to organize their attack. What will the king do?