Monopolizing the conversation news.com
Oh dear, I wasted time on my own flippant reply when another press article was near at hand. Unlike some, I'm perfectly willing to let others make my arguments for me, especially when they have editors and stuff to make sure their articles are readable and coherent. Jeez, this Margie Wylie looks like a good candidate for honorary membership in the sacred fellowship of the ilk.
Microsoft earlier this month publicly chastised Ralph Nader for creating a "witch hunt atmosphere" with an "ambush" disguised as a conference in Washington, D.C.
Boo-hoo. Poor Microsoft.
Sure, Nader portrayed a slanted view of the company and its practices. Still, it's hard to whip up a lot of sympathy for a company that's been monopolizing the conversation in the computer industry so thoroughly and for so long when it's finally on the receiving end. ...
Gates used the bully pulpit at Comdex to sketch a benevolent world dominated by cheaper, faster products from Microsoft, with no detriment to the consumer, of course. Who needs competition? But he also launched from the pulpit of Comdex an image makeover of a kinder, gentler Bill, who can take personal criticism, admit mistakes, and laugh at himself. Probably the reason the chairman showed up at PC Week's Spencer the Katt party and cut a rug. Quite a contrast to last year's tightly controlled, frosty TV-only interviews. ...
Still, just because Microsoft has so much leverage over the conversation doesn't mean it should just shut up and let critics like Nader, Netscape, and Sun run it down in Washington. It should defend itself.
But rather than answering its critics' charges, the company has chosen to only attack their motives. Yes, motives matter, and pointing out that former FTC commissioner Christine Varney is on Netscape's payroll is a valid criticism. But so far, that's just about all Microsoft has done. If what these critics have to say is so erroneous, then why not delineate their wrongheadedness, point by point? ...
On specific counts of intimidation, tying, monopoly leveraging, and other allegations, Microsoft has remained defiantly mum, that is until this week's reply to the Justice Department that simply said Microsoft can integrate anything it pleases into the Windows operating system and it's none of the DOJ's business.
It's all part of what Nader called a "typical nonresponse" from the company, a phenomenon he said springs from the company's palpable arrogance and contempt for the law--in fact, for anyone with which it disagrees. ...
Even Microsoft's own congressman agreed that software companies should be a little less arrogant in an October speech before Amdahl computer executives. Too often companies dismiss government agencies as mere buffoons when they should be working with them, said Rep. Rick White (R-Washington).
"Ignoring government is a dangerous thing," he said. He might have added that ignoring people who know their way around the Beltway can be equally disastrous.
Somehow, I don't think his constituents were listening.
Well, old Fred Moody briefly had a problem with arrogant Microsoft, but Bill must have called and set his mind straight, along with that nice revisionist history lesson on Microsoft and the internet. I'm sure Rep. White will be corrected in due course also. Having received plenty of ad hominem attacks in the past, we the ilk understand that that's Microsoft's traditional first line of defense. Sorry for the long excerpt, I have trouble cutting articulate honorary ilkers down to appropriate size.
Cheers, Dan. |
