Such a bully takes advantage of his strength over his victims and has no conscience about the outcome of his criminal activity. In my mind, this metaphor is befitting of Microsoft.
This is not an image which I have arbitrarily chosen to have. Like anyone involved in those horrific and tragic crimes I just mentioned, he/she cannot help but to think and believe this way about the perpetrator.
I remember clearly when Windows 3.1 was released to much fanfare. I remember the headlines and the scuffle between Microsoft and IBM (who had jointly developed the technology) as, just before release, they went their own ways: Microsoft releasing Windows and IBM releasing OS/2.
I remember getting a free version of Windows 2.0 (at least a year before 3.1's release) with a mouse which I had purchased for my DOS 3.3 machine... and how I had thought how wonderful it would be if "the dream" were realized: Microsoft would, at long last, catch up with the superior Apple Macintosh operating system. I was excited! And, at that time, I very much liked Microsoft Corporation.
I remember the fanfare and how Lotus 1-2-3 had been one of the biggest sellers of all time... and how 30% of all computers sold were purchased specifically to run that application! I remember VisiCalc and how it had led to the introduction of Lotus 1-2-3. It was competition. It was good for all of us. Lotus was far superior to VisiCalc.
Then, after Lotus 1-2-3 re-crafted its product to be released about the same time as Windows 3.1, I remember how Microsoft had treated its "partner" -- by singling it out for the kill with the then-inferior Microsft Excel product.
That wasn't the only partner which Microsoft, like any cannibal craving its fix for blood went after. It gobbled up dozens, perhaps hundreds, of its partners who had timed major releases of their products to coincide with the release of Windows 3.1. Within one year of the release of Windows 3.1, Microsoft had introduced products to compete with its partners.
That's right... the very "friends" who helped it achieve a historically-successful product launch became, within the first year of release, victims of their own business partner.
In some cases, Microsoft introduced code into its Operating System (i.e., Windows) which would pop up false error messages if it detected one of its "partner's" products installed. I remember having to tinker with settings just to get the Operating System to *not* complain because I had chosen the superior Lotus 1-2-3 over Excel. (If I recall correctly, Microsoft reached an out-of-court settlement with either WordPerfect or Novell for such malicious behavior).
These were not fair business practices... regardless of whether the particular partner in question was a behemoth itself (like IBM) or a small group (like Quarterdeck). The schoolyard bully was getting tougher and stronger while it made its "rape victims" grin and enjoy the ride while "conducting business" with them.
And the only result was that the public suffered from the anti-competitive actions of this growing corporation. Sure, those who invested were pleased... Mr. Gates, obviously was pleased. But the software industry floundered for at least a decade because of these actions. And the "average user" -- the public, if you will -- suffered tremendously.
There are Microsoft proponents who argue about all the benefits which Microsoft has brought to the public. My reply is that, like the new-formed land which results from an erupting volcano, I cannot feel pleased with all the destruction -- which occurred simultaneously -- on the way to the the formation of the new land; and, like the Volcano's benevolence, any benefit to be realized by the public will take a long time... most of us who have lived through the tyrannical-corporate climate will have to pass and the memories of the destruction will have to be diluted before "good will" for the public can be feigned.
Fast-forward to 1994, when Microsoft released Windows 95. This was the first time that the company had offered a significant product which took advantage of the internet. And with its release, Microsoft made deals with Internet Service Providers giving them great discounts if they would configure their settings to interfere with the number one internet browser of the day -- Netscape, a product which emerged from the fantastic minds at the University of Illinois (and whose codebase is still the heart of Mozilla products). It was just like a Mafia boss bullying his opponents and killing those who would not "play nicely."
One may recall when the U.S. Federal courts also found Microsoft to be a derelicht corporate citizen after a Herculean, four-year battle where founder Bill Gates was contemptible (at least, his public image was) when he showed the world that he thought that his empire was beyond the grasp of the same laws by which every business operating in this free market must abide. Common (but, mostly-ignored) thinking is that then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's resolution of the case was at least as contemptible as Microsoft and its founder had been during the trial.
Half of the states which were involved in the anti-trust lawsuit disagreed with the settlement. Many professional organizations, also, stated that the lead judge had over-estimated the settlement in Microsoft's favor.
In my opinion, that settlement was akin to a criminal judge settling a lawsuit where the child molestor is proved guilty (Microsoft's guilt was never in doubt), but allowed to operate day care centers despite the court's findings and the plaintiff's disagreement with the terms of settlement.
Microsoft Corporation mocked the U.S. Attorney many times during the trial. Its corporate officers and paid "experts," including a Professor from Princeton University blatantly lied on more than one occasion. As described in news reports and here:
When the judge ordered Microsoft to offer a version of Windows which did not include Internet Explorer, Microsoft responded that the company would offer manufacturers a choice: one version of Windows that was obsolete, or another that did not work properly. The judge asked, "It seemed absolutely clear to you that I entered an order that required that you distribute a product that would not work?" David D. Cole, a Microsoft vice president, replied, "In plain English, yes. We followed that order. It wasn't my place to consider the consequences of that." [8] Princeton University professor Edward Felten presented a modified version of Windows from which he claimed the Internet Explorer function had been removed. On cross-examination, he was guided through a sequence of steps that produced a fully functional Internet Explorer window1.
But, Microsoft hasn't stopped with the world's "only super-power." The European Union also has found Microsoft to be guilty of unfair business practices in its judicial domain. And, since Ashcroft is not the government representative of the "public interest" in Europe, the result was not as sweet.
Since the European Union ordered Microsoft to comply with its laws, desktop users on the whole planet have gained benefit. Microsoft has been "forced" (by true market demand) to comply with standards, as it recently released its updated browser which, finally, accepts standards which most browsers were supporting more than 18 months prior.
Unlike in the U.S. v. Microsoft case, the E.U. leveed the largest fine it had ever ($613 Million U.S. Dollars) handed against a corporation in March 2004; according to reports, Microsoft paid in full 4 months after the verdict.
Again, in a display of contempt for the public well-being and demand from a legal jurisdiction, Microsoft has decided to pay $2 million dollar per day that it does not comply with the E.U. ruling. The total, from Decmber 2005 through June 2006 is reported to be an additional $280 million U.S. dollars; and the fine was scheduled to increase2 to $3 million U.S. dollars per day as of July 2006, if Microsoft continued to resist compliance.
I am not certain about the results of these astronomical amounts of money; but, of this I am sure: after being a technologist professionally for more than 2 decades, I am certain that I will be able to stop fondling the keyboards of my (our) rapist within the next decade if Open Source trends continue as they have been for the past 5 years!
Despite the ugly, uncomfortable history of practical computing, this gives me great hope!
FOOTNOTES
1Wikipedia Article re: U.S. v. Microsoft
2Wikipedia Article re: E.U. v. Microsoft
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Antitrust Case Filings in U.S. v. Microsoft
Joint Status Report on Microsoft's Compliance...
No comments:
Post a Comment