That's a very good rebuttal, Tim, but knowing the Tampa Trib the way I do,
they'll edit the letter to suit *THEIR* views, not yours. That's what I hate
about newspapers and the liberal media. It's always slanted.
Anita (Of course, this is IMHO......)
Tim Wright wrote:
> Check today's Tampa Tribune for an editorial on the Microsoft Case. I
> disagree completely with all their arguments, and you'd think the piece was
> ghostwritten by a Microsoft hack.
>
> Attached is a copy of a letter I sent today. I'd suggest that anybody else
> out there who has a problem with the Trib's position to write a letter to the
> editor.
>
> Here's my two cents' worth:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> From: Tim Wright <t.wright1@mindspring.com>
> To: tribletters@tampatrib.com
> Subject: Microsoft Editorial
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 13:07:38 -0500
> X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2]
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-Id: <0201261307380F.01483@noname.nodomain.nowhere>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Status: RO
> X-Status: Q
>
> I have to take exception to your editorial of 26 January. It's the Justice
> Department's proposed settlement that is doing the public no favor. Microsoft
> has systematically eliminated competition in the desktop computing market
> through unlawful means. This was established in the trial and upheld though
> appeal. Instead of building a better mousetrap, Microsoft resorted to
> strong-arm methods to maintain its monopoly position. What the public needs
> is a remedy to restore competition to this market, and the nine states that
> didn't sign up to the Justice Department's proposed settlement are seeking
> that.
>
> Your argument that breaking up Windows will raise prices fails to take the
> marketplace into account. When users have a choice of several competing
> applications, prices will go down and quality will go up. Opponents of the
> AT&T Bell System bereakup in 1986 offered the same empty argument: this will
> hurt the consumer. History has shown us different. Like the Bell System
> breakup, we're dismantling a monopoly that provided adequate service to
> restore competition and real innovation. There can be no real innovation with
> only one player (Microsoft) in the market.
>
> Remember when you couldn't own your telephone? Or having to pay extra for
> every extension in your house? This sounds a lot like Microsoft's perpetual
> upgrade game and software leasing program. Remember when you didn't have any
> choice between dial and touch tone? You took what the phone company told you
> to take, and if you didn't like the cost of long distance, too bad. This
> looks a lot like Microsoft's licensing agreement with computer manufacturers.
> That was how we had it when there was only one telephone company. The phones
> always worked under the Bell System, and we got by, because it was all we had
> and knew. Breaking up the Microsoft monopoly will benefit the public as much
> as breaking up AT&T into the Baby Bells.
>
> The argument about the chilling effect on innovation is ludicrous. Microsoft
> destroyed competition in the web browser market by unlawfully bundling
> Internet Explorer into Windows. The Court was very clear on that. Netscape
> distributed its browser for free before Microsoft made its move, and there
> are currently several browsers offered for free to the public or at prices
> well below that of the Windows operating system attached to Internet
> Explorer: Netscape, Konqueror, Mozilla, and Opera just to name four. We're
> likely to see more if the market is opened to competition. As your editorial
> cited in this case, the inventor, Microsoft, would give up property, Internet
> Explorer, as part of a court remedy because it was used unlawfully. That's
> hardly a penalty for innovation. Bank robbers don't get their guns back,
> either.
>
> The third reason cited fails to take into account that the people represented
> by the dissenting states disagreed with the initial plea bargain offered by
> the Justice Department. The fault lies with the government for not taking
> large enough measures to assure Microsoft's unlawful business practices will
> stop. This is the same Microsoft that violated a consent decree by leaving
> Internet Explorer bundled into Windows 98.
>
> The problems with security and malicious code: Nimda, Code Red, numerous
> other viruses/worms/trojans, and the security holes in Windows that allow
> hackers to remotely take over machines are a symptom of the problem. If there
> was any real competition out there, would Windows be so vulnerable? When
> there was competition in the software market during the 1980s, we saw
> tremendous growth and innovation. Desktop computers began taking on functions
> that used to belong solely to mainframes. That growth has stagnated now that
> Microsoft has dominated the market. We're already seeing foreign governments
> and businesses in China, Latin America, and Europe rejecting Windows for
> security reasons. In time, this could lead to America losing it's pre-eminent
> position in software development.
>
> Microsoft has enjoyed a monopoly position for too long. We see the effects
> every day with reports of new viruses and security problems with Windows and
> Microsoft applications. Problems that Microsoft claims to have corrected, if
> you pay for the next upgrade. Competition must be restored to the
> marketplace, and that means breaking up Microsoft and breaking up Windows,
> the same as breaking up Standard Oil and AT&T. When it comes to saying
> "enough," the people have had enough of the Microsoft monopoly.
>
> I know I've exceeded your 150-word guideline, but I have strong feelings
> concerning this case. I'm not a computer professional, but I do use them
> every day in my work as an engineer. There are alternatives to Microsoft
> products out there, and many work a lot better for less money. This case is
> all about choice. Microsoft built a monopoly, then unlawfully maintained it.
> When we have no choice but to use what Microsoft says we'll use at the price
> they dictate, it's time to restore competition to the marketplace.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:46:13 EDT