Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[John Bokma]

[ this thread ]

The pollution *is* there, despite the possibility of individual
screening. The subject and the contents violates some basic nsgroup
principles, such as topicality. One to ten irrelevant postings do no
harm. More than hundred - become annoying. Cross-posting to 5 groups
is bad. Please go away.

The problem is that adding "please stop, please go away" postings to this
thread have 0 effect. Or worse, people posting such messages, and tweaking
the FollowUp-To: header resulting in more and more pollution.

It doesn't work, sad but true. Best is to kill the entire thread, hope the
long discussion stays in it, and dies out, and doesn't spark similar
discussions.

Also refraining from posting to any thread started by Xah Lee (I guess it
was "our" troll again), no matter how tempting, might help (I am going to
try, again).

Claiming that this is an interesting, "great" thread is utterly silly
in this context. Shall Python newsgroup discuss the trial of Saddam
Hussein as well?

And should it be crossposted to: comp.lang.perl.misc, comp.unix.programmer,
comp.lang.java.programmer, and comp.os.linux.misc?

 

[Antoon Pardon]

They have obligations to their clients because (and only because)
failure to provide the services they contract to provide will result in
lawsuits and harm to the shareholders. All other obligations come from the
harm these failures will do to the shareholders. First and formost,
companies exist to do the will of their shareholders.

Do I understand correctly.

Lets take the following situation:

A company figures out something is wrong with one of their new models.
They have two options. They can repair the problem or they can leave
it as is and brace the laswsuits that will likely follow. An analysis
shows that the first option is likely to cost more than the second.

As far as I understand you, the company should ship the faulty model.

 

[Roedy Green]

They have obligations to their clients because (and only because)
failure to provide the services they contract to provide will result in
lawsuits and harm to the shareholders. All other obligations come from the
harm these failures will do to the shareholders.

That's the view of Republican, but it is not the only view. Some
might say the law trumps that. It does not matter if breaking the law
would be more profitable, you still don't do it.

 

[Roedy Green]

As far as I understand you, the company should ship the faulty model.

This is what they do. However, I find it odd people seriously
suggesting that is the way society SHOULD run.

 

[David Schwartz]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:54:14 -0700, "David Schwartz"

That's the view of Republican, but it is not the only view. Some
might say the law trumps that. It does not matter if breaking the law
would be more profitable, you still don't do it.

Did I say their obligation was to secure their shareholders as much
profit as possible? I said their obligation was to their shareholders.

I am only continuing this off-topic thread on newsgroups that probably
don't want it because it is a basic principle of fairness that a false or
distorted comment deserves an rebuttal anywhere that false or distorted
comment appears. However, it doesn't deserve a full debate anywhere except
where it's on-topic.

DS

 

[David Schwartz]

A company figures out something is wrong with one of their new models.
They have two options. They can repair the problem or they can leave
it as is and brace the laswsuits that will likely follow. An analysis
shows that the first option is likely to cost more than the second.

As far as I understand you, the company should ship the faulty model.

It is impossible to respond to this with anything shorter than many
pages. Google for "prudent predator" if you want all sides to this question.
The short answer is "maybe".

To the people who think that you obviously shouldn't, ask them the
following hypothetical: You have a million pounds of grain. Destroying it
will probably cost at least ten lives due to starvation. The grain, however,
is contaminated, and selling it will likely make ten people sick, of which
three will probably die. Should you destroy the grain?

You do have an obligation to the shareholders not to commit fraud in
their name.

DS

 

[Antoon Pardon]

It is impossible to respond to this with anything shorter than many
pages. Google for "prudent predator" if you want all sides to this question.
The short answer is "maybe".

To the people who think that you obviously shouldn't, ask them the
following hypothetical: You have a million pounds of grain. Destroying it
will probably cost at least ten lives due to starvation. The grain, however,
is contaminated, and selling it will likely make ten people sick, of which
three will probably die. Should you destroy the grain?

You could sell it, making it clear to those you sell it to that it is
contaminated grain and explaining what the risk are in consuming this grain.

You do have an obligation to the shareholders not to commit fraud in
their name.

Well then you can't ship the model unless you also make the problem
public. Because shipping the model while you know it has problems
is IMO fraud. Free trade IMO involves correct information about what
is traded.

 

[Roger Blake]

A company figures out something is wrong with one of their new models.
They have two options. They can repair the problem or they can leave
it as is and brace the laswsuits that will likely follow. An analysis
shows that the first option is likely to cost more than the second.

What you are desribing is the Ford Pinto. (As you may recall, Ford
determined that it would cost less to settle the lawsuits of charbroiled
customers and their families than to fix the poor engineering of the
gas tank on that car.)

As far as I understand you, the company should ship the faulty model.

That is what Ford did for years with the Pinto.

They failed to take into account that beyond the short-term profit
numbers, there is an effect on the company's reputation and profitibility
when shipping faulty products in a competitive marketplace. Today's
U.S. automakers are still suffering from poor reputations they earned
decades ago.

 

[Antoon Pardon]

What you are desribing is the Ford Pinto. (As you may recall, Ford
determined that it would cost less to settle the lawsuits of charbroiled
customers and their families than to fix the poor engineering of the
gas tank on that car.)


That is what Ford did for years with the Pinto.

And as far as I understand David Schwartz that was the right decision
of Ford.

They failed to take into account that beyond the short-term profit
numbers, there is an effect on the company's reputation and profitibility
when shipping faulty products in a competitive marketplace. Today's
U.S. automakers are still suffering from poor reputations they earned
decades ago.

But that is aftersight. If is always possible that you overlooked
something in your analisis or that some information is unavailable.
So you are forced to take a decision based on the information then
available. Whether or not the problem involves ethics in trading
doesn't change that.

 

[David Schwartz]

There would be if an engine manufacturer refused to provide car
manufacturers with ANY engines for any model, unless all buyers were
charged for THEIR engine in every model, whether their engine was in
there or not.

You want to cease this line of apologism.

I'm sorry, that's just crazy. An engine manufacturer could refuse to
provide car manufacturers with ANY engines at all if they wanted to. It's
their engines. They can use any mutually agreeable method to determine the
number of engines provided and the price.

This is not apologism. Microsoft has nothing to apologize for here.
Microsoft has no ability to make anyone pay a penny more for their software,
or the right to distribute it, than it is worth to them.

DS

 

[Peter T. Breuer]

I'm sorry, that's just crazy.

No it's not.

An engine manufacturer could refuse to
provide car manufacturers with ANY engines at all if they wanted to.

Fine - the car manufacturer would get engines somewhere else. Engine
manufacturers do not appear to hold monopoly positions, so the car
manufacturer is not over a barrel over it. And gearboxes and clutches
work with any engine, not just that particular manufacturer's engines,
and customers will be used to driving with any engine at all, not just
that one. Maps and other driver aids also work no matter what engine is
in the car, so there is no industry pressure to use that engine and no
other engine.

It's
their engines. They can use any mutually agreeable method to determine the
number of engines provided and the price.

Not if they abuse a monopoly position in doing so, which is where we
started.

This is not apologism. Microsoft has nothing to apologize for here.

Then it is apologism. You implode. Thanks and bye.

Peter

 

[robic0]

Xah Lee, I went through some of your web site, because of time
couldn't examine (but a few) code guides. Read all you philosophy
pages though, even about languages I didn't know. I took a
course in my Mechanical Engineering study days, an elective,
based on assembly lang with a hex input keypad, no saves
had to be right the first time. Before that, I did several
fortran programs and an array of HP (Hewlet Packard,
reverse polish) scientific programs. This was my senior
year and I failed that class. The instructor was obnoxious
and that class (credits) prevented me from getting my
degree (by 3 credits). Now acording to Pavlofs dog theory
I should not have wanted to persue any of these assembly
codes in the future. As it turns out, I threatend the
dean with a suit, no extended symester, got out with
a 3.4 gpa, got a z80a machine, wrote a dissasembler
within 6 months, wrote a commercial program in assembly
6 months later, wrote a spreadsheet program 6 months
later. From there I wrote a program called Action Memo,
a few years later (1985) that is something called "Act" now,
licensed by Lotus and Microsoft. Stolen from me in an
Ashton Tate/PC World contest which I only placed 2nd.
I won a software bundle, imagin that. But concept and
sourse was all they needed. Now I'm scratchin out a living
having worked for Quaterdeck, Microsft, McAfee, Symantec.
I applied Perl just over a year ago, the latest, after
drivers, large scale apps, gui, com, java. I've written
over 14 million lines of code in 20 years and when I
write in performance mode I rember back to the days
when I wrote TSR's because I don't think in terms of
macro or Perl. I know what the assembly is and man..
that never changes. I'm very afraid of how "hype"
affects new, young programmers. Larry Wall didn't do
so much with Perl, I could have done it in my sleep.
I may do something better, you never know man!!

 

[robic0]

I think this guy should run for President. Anybody says M$oft
is trying to screw the little guy is "alright" in my book.

 

[David Schwartz]

Not if they abuse a monopoly position in doing so, which is where we
started.

In other words, what they did was wrong because it was them who did it.
It is fine if anyone else does, just not fine if Microsoft does it.

And what is it they have a monopoly in again? Operating systems? What
about OSX? x86 operating systems? What about Linux? Oh yeah, they have a
monopoly in "desktop operating systems for x86-based computers".

Can you cite any rational reason whatsoever for defining the market so
ridiculously narrowly? Of course not.

There is no rational way Microsoft could have expected the irrational
and nonsensical basis for this argument.

DS

 

[Roedy Green]

Did I say their obligation was to secure their shareholders as much
profit as possible? I said their obligation was to their shareholders.

You are literally saying people work for a company have an obligation
to the shareholders. That is too obvious to be bothered with
announcing. The employees take the shareholder's money, so obviously
they have an obligation to produce something in return. When I read
your words, I think you really mean this is the prime or sole
obligation of an employee. I disagree with that. There are many
loyalties that compete.

Personally, the loyalty to the preservation of my planet is far above
loyalty to any company. For example, I would feel a moral obligation
to be a whistleblower of actions of a company that was destroying the
environment.

 

[Peter T. Breuer]

In other words, what they did was wrong because it was them who did it.

No, do not twist words. What they did was wrong, no matter what their
name was. If somebody else had done that it would alsobe wrong.

It is fine if anyone else does, just not fine if Microsoft does it.
Nope.

And what is it they have a monopoly in again? Operating systems?

O/ses on PC platforms, as determined by the courts. Thanks to their
initial agreement with IBM, and subsequent nasty tactics.

Can you cite any rational reason whatsoever for defining the market so
ridiculously narrowly? Of course not.

I define whatever you are talking about the way it is, unlike you, who
seem to define whatever it is the way you like. So go 'way 'n be
happy. The world has spoken.

Peter

 

[axel]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:15:03 -0700, "David Schwartz"

You are literally saying people work for a company have an obligation
to the shareholders. That is too obvious to be bothered with
announcing. The employees take the shareholder's money, so obviously
they have an obligation to produce something in return. When I read
your words, I think you really mean this is the prime or sole
obligation of an employee. I disagree with that. There are many
loyalties that compete.

Employees have *no* obligations towards the shareholders of a company.
They are not employed or paid by the shareholders, they are employed
by the company itself which is a separate legal entity.

It is a different matter for the board of directors of a company.

Axel

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

Employees have *no* obligations towards the shareholders of a company.
They are not employed or paid by the shareholders, they are employed
by the company itself which is a separate legal entity.

It is a different matter for the board of directors of a company.

The board of directors are also employees of the company. That's why the
company can fire them.

 

[T Beck]

[snip]
O/ses on PC platforms, as determined by the courts. Thanks to their
initial agreement with IBM, and subsequent nasty tactics.

So what I'm getting here is, that they abused their monopoly power to
secure their initial deal with IBM. Which is what made them a
monopoly. MS didn't have a monopoly before IBM, so what kind of draw
did they have to make IBM sign the paper, except that they were
offering something that IBM wanted, and IBM was willing to pay that
much for it? Nobody made IBM sign that deal, IBM thought that it
worked out OK for both parties. As for later deals with OEM
manufacturers, if it's OK for MS to make that deal with IBM, then why
does it suddenly become an "abuse of their power" if they're using the
same business model?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure MS has done plenty of shady stuff, and I'm
sure most every other sucessful company has. Just because we got a
lawsuit to watch for MS doesn't mean other companies like Sony or IBM
haven't done similar stuff we've never heard of. I'm just trying to
figure out how offering their contract changed from OK to not OK, based
purely on how well they were doing...

--T Beck

 

[Peter T. Breuer]

news:[email protected]...

Not if they abuse a monopoly position in doing so, which is where we
started.

[snip]
O/ses on PC platforms, as determined by the courts. Thanks to their
initial agreement with IBM, and subsequent nasty tactics.

So what I'm getting here is, that they abused their monopoly power to
secure their initial deal with IBM.

No - they got the deal with IBM when they were a garage startup.

Later they burned off competing dos's for the IBM PC via nasty tactics
(like making their programs fail to run on drdos). When they got the
monopoly position via those tactics, then they got PC makers to pay
them for windows, whether windows went on the box or not, r else they
charged them impossible prices for the o/s.

Your argument is "anybody would have done that". Other companies have
tried that sort of trick, and it's been illegal too. Google for it -
don't take the word of us non-legal non-business people.

Peter