At 04:29 PM 3/1/2001, Ralph Loura wrote:
> Second question (for those on this list that no longer work at
> Lucent).  Many people assert (and the government feels it has proven)
> that Microsoft has acted unethically in its actions in the O.S. and
> applications marketplace.  If you agree (and from prior postings it
> seems a majority of this alias do) then why do you buy their products,
> use their products and for many here make a living installing and
> managing their products for others?  If you feel they are unethical,
> then don't you owe it to your conscience to boycott them in all those ways?

I'm now at a startup that avoids MS everywhere we can.  It's been very
interesting to learn where this just isn't possible into today's
business world.  Sadly, these examples are all due to the violations of
the anti-trust act that Microsoft committed.  As a result, I'll be
spending thousands of dollars to work around the limits put in place by
the result of all this.

Note that I said "violations of the anti-trust act" and not
"monopolistic".  A monopoly is legal in the U.S. and growing large
enough in a particular segment to be considered (this is a legal term)
"a virtual monopoly" is legal.  The issue is that when you meet the
qualifications of a virtual monopoly you have to act within a slightly
different set of business laws.  The government isn't against
monopolies and you could even say that they think they're great.  You
just have to abide by a slightly different set of laws that were
constructed to prevent those companies from having an unfair and
undeserved advantage.

Microsoft's claims are that it doesn't matter whether or not they are a
virtual monopoly that the ENTIRE COMPUTER INDUSTRY is exempt from the
anti-trust act.  Why?  Because computers didn't exist when the act was
written (FACT: Plastic didn't either, but the plastic industry abides
by the laws).  Because technology makes the law obsolete?  (FACT:
Companies must abide by the law until it is changed, there is no "civil
disobedience" for corporations.  Oh, and civil disobedience is illegal
(otherwise it wouldn't be disobedience)).

I've said this a million times before and I'll say it again here.  The
DoJ vs. Microsoft case is not about Microsoft.  It is about whether the
anti-trust act applies to the computer industry.  It must be applied to
the software industry or the entire industry will go to hell for anyone
not named Bill Gates.  That would be un-American.

--Tom

<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-572732-5";
urchinTracker();
</script>