Re: [SLUG] Microsoft Editorial

From: Erle Richard Stanley Robinson (arobinso@tampabay.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jan 26 2002 - 08:41:03 EST


On Saturday 26 January 2002 13:25, you wrote:
Since when can the Tampa Tribune be called Liberal Media?

> 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 - 19:49:15 EDT