Very well said Tim!
Thanks,
Steve
On Saturday 26 January 2002 01:14 pm, you 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 - 19:46:24 EDT