Barrons letters are all pro-MSFT and anti-stupid jackson and lawyers, useless creatures on this planet. Lawyers and politicians are Parasites.
Microsoft's Road Ahead
To the Editor:
What is our government's lawsuit against Microsoft (Plugged In, November 8) all about? Well, it certainly isn't about all the brainless platitudes mouthed by the government's minions and their lazy supporters in the media. Antitrust law has always been a prisoner of the current Administration and its politics.
One thing it's about is the revenge of all those guys who can't do math and so decided to go to law school and take a paycheck from the most generous of all employers, the U.S. government, i.e., the hapless taxpayer.
It's also about a culture clash. Lawyers look backward and try to find wisdom in precedent. Plagiarism is the very foundation of their craft. Engineers look forward, know that progress is a function of innovation, and know that precedent is anathema to innovation. Engineers know that the very foundation of our standard of living and our prosperity rests upon technological innovation. But lawyers, if left unchecked, would sue us all back into the Stone Age. Lawyers view engineers as targets for extortion.
In spite of this, one can still find some technological businesses rooting for Microsoft's downfall. For these persons, whose livelihood depends upon technological innovation, to support the enemies of innovation is to make a pact with the devil. Several years ago a lawyer whose technical knowledge was limited to using a push-button telephone presided over the breakup of the so-called AT&T monopoly and thereby, with the stroke of a pen, created seven new monopolies, the socalled Baby Bells, and our telephone bills have soared ever since.
The relevant question is: If Microsoft's setting of a standard for personal computer operating systems didn't exist, would we have the robust software, personal-computer and Internet businesses we presently enjoy? Would we have the robust economy that can support the legions of lawyers who mindlessly debate the modern equivalent of angels dancing on the head of a pin? If not for technological innovation, the present plague of lawyers afflicting our society would long ago have brought our economy to its knees. But they are too damned stupid to realize it.
FRED CHARETTE, PHD
Glendale, California
To the Editor:
Putting aside the debate of "free markets," "innovation" and "monopoly," the market seems to be ignoring the looming albatross that this action will become to Microsoft. Instead of focusing on new products, new ways of doing business (the things the brass of Microsoft are really good at) these people, representing a significant amount of the "real capital" of the corporation, are now forced to enter the ring with the government (contrary to popular opinion, the Feds still have more money and lawyers than Bill Gates) to litigate or negotiate for their company's future. At best, I would think there is a forthcoming diminution of return on invested capital.
RONALD SPRAGUE
Woodbridge, New Jersey
To the Editor:
Many people still don't understand the folly of our Justice Department and Judge Jackson. Once again, they are pursuing the wrong Bill.
BOB ALLEN
Los Altos, California
To the Editor:
I've spent 30 years in the computer business, and it is better and cheaper now because of Microsoft.
The Clinton Democrats need Silicon Valley money to campaign for next year's elections. What better way to get it than to pick on Microsoft?
EARL WEST
Lillian, Alabama
To the Editor:
I own a small company. I started it five years ago with three Apple Macs, having been a Mac fanatic since 1983 (I still own an original Mac).
It soon became clear that I couldn't easily "talk to" others in my industry with my Macs. Was it because Microsoft had monopolized the market with its DOS and Windows operating systems? I certainly thought so at the time. I resented having to shell out $20,000-plus to outfit my company with the Novell Network and Windows-compatible computers.
But then a funny thing happened: I saw that I had upgraded to a superior system where my software, hardware, support and -- most importantly -- the interdependency of our data were all coming together. I became more creative. I got more of what I wanted and needed.
I donated the Macs to a school.
I don't own Microsoft stock. Yet I extol the enormous accomplishment Bill Gates and his happy band of engineers have created. He deserves every dollar he has received.
I love my Windows 95 and 98 (co-existing) systems. I love my Microsoft Office 97 environment. Our office hums. I did not resent the upgrade cost of going from Office 95 to Office 97.
Microsoft may have played hardball with Netscape. Microsoft may have had executives who may have bullied computer companies to carry its software on all of their computers, to increase its market share.
So what?
By the way, we use Netcape Navigator as our Web browser; we just didn't like Explorer. Judge Jackson can just ignore the Explorer in his Windows bundle, with zero problems.
Microsoft didn't legislate my choice. Jackson shouldn't attempt to legislate my choice, either.
MICHAEL MCKAY
Fairfield, Iowa
|
