Hello, A friend from the IRC going by the name MaxEntrpy thought you would appreciate seeing this mail I sent to M$ today, so here it is... Text: Dear Kim, I today browsed your www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate pages, and have a few things to say in retort to what I read. On the page: http://www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/newsletter/default.htm#6 Microsoft states: Unprecedented Government Proposals Would Harm American Consumers, Industry And Economy Microsoft Corp. today said the government's unprecedented regulatory scheme is unjustifiably punitive and would be a major setback for the American economy and consumers. The company said the government's proposal threatens a core principle in the American economy: that are encouraged to compete by creating innovative products that respond to the marketplace and consumers. Here's what I "read" from that: -Microsoft feels unduly targeted, even though they deserve it (further reasoning to this is below...) -Microsoft is skirting the original point of the lawsuits by miring the argument into one which now seeks to INVOLVE more people than it originally was targeted at; the States in the suit, and Microsoft. -Microsoft's idea of the so-called "core principal in the American economy" is misused in this case; as the only core principal I know of only applies to companies that do not partake in PROVEN and UNDENIABLY monopolistic practices. "Microsoft never could have created Windows and Office if they were in separate companies. Innovations that began within Office have quickly been incorporated into Windows so they are available to every applications developer." -Wow, finally a section containing clean truisms. Yes, A company like Microsoft could probably never have created software like that if there were like any other company. Examples would be Corel, VALinux, and Linux PPC. They created products similar, and in my opinion, far better. They allso give credence to operating systems that ARE NOT rooted in closed source trees. "Dismantling Microsoft would hurt the company's ability to continue to innovate, and that would hurt consumers." -Outright lie. Dismantling MS would only hurt your consumers if you continued to attempt to develop software in the same manner that you do today. It seems that the very type of innovations you seem to hold so high and cherish greatly DO NOT apply to the way you work internally. It would logically mean that if you are truly "innovative" that you could simply find a better way to work around any and all stumbling blocks. Or, am I wrong? "It's anti-consumer to tear apart the development teams that created two of the most innovative technology products and that have helped to revolutionize productivity. " -Tell us WHY it's anti-comsumer, please. Your statement here seems empty to me. All I am left to infer from such an empty statement is that you think it would anti-consumer only because you would not be able to compete with better, more innovative products from other companies who CAN adapt and work around the aforementioned stumbling blocks that you would then be faced with. Please, don't let our minds wander. (yes, that was sarcasm) "Microsoft has a proven track record of delivering consumer value as a single company." -Where does Microsoft prove this? I hold you to the same level of factual competency that I hold other companies to; so, please humor me and maybe post some real data. -In terms of value, I don't see how paying $1000+ for Exchange 5 (and a copy of Nt4) to simply have a web-enabled/pop/imap mail server, when things like Apache, SendMail, Q-POPer, and FreeLDAP server packages exist. "Microsoft has worked hard for years to develop Windows and Office, and these products have provided great benefits to millions of consumers. The message of today is that if you invent two great products, the government may someday take one of them away. -Microsoft has worked hard? Sounds like you didn't innovate enough (i.e. MS could have simply downloaded the source code to Linux or BSd and gone from there.. oh, wait, Microsoft kinda did I guess; Nt mostly works.. again, deal with the sarcasm) -In regards to the Government "taking away" your rights to software as a company, I agree with them. If I own a business that participates in monopolistic practices, I expect to be reprimanded for it. Innovate around the problem or face your demise, Microsoft. "Customers, partners and shareholders can expect that Microsoft will continue to compete in a fair and legal manner, as we believe we always have," said Steve Ballmer, Microsoft president and CEO -I would like to see proof that Microsoft, it's subsidiaries, and associated firms have at all times, and in all places, stuck to what Steve had gone on record in saying. -I may be just a dumb college student, but it was made very clear to me in Freshmen English, EN 103 I recall, that making absolute statements is generally a bad a thing. If you do (make such a statement), expect much questioning. It's just good etiquette to include proof damnit. "For months, the government and a handful of our competitors have been repeating that Microsoft should be broken up. But no matter how many times it's repeated, it's still unreasonable," Ballmer said. -Agreed, splitting your company into two pieces is probably a bad thing to do, and it would probably shake your position atop the OS field. -A better solution, in my mind, is forcing Microsoft to open up the source tree to NT and 9x. Then, if everything stated about "adding value" and "delivering value" is true, there will be nothing to worry about, because the source would, of course, not contain anything even remotely invasive or underhanded! Right? (wow..I'm relay in sarcastic mood today...) "Microsoft has exciting plans to develop a broad array of next generation software products that will take computing to the next level, but those plans are imperiled by the extreme regulation proposed by the government." -Some elaboration here would be great! What kinda of next generation software are you talking about? Software that gets more: efficient, fast, and portable? Or software that: gets more bloated, is released with >1000 known bugs, costs at least 10x more than a comparable solution from one of your competitors, and has great amounts of questionable features? Please, enlighten me to the choice. Or, if these two options don't fit, please, indicate what the stance is that you hold. In closing, I would like to leave you with the following thoughts: In my opinion, the "consumers" you "play to" or market your software at are in essence a captive audience. They have not the initiative to explore other software or OS realms because, for them, the product you offer is "good enough." This belies the notion that Microsoft, in fact, is innovating at all. Rather, it servers to give me the feeling that you want to be able to be "the ones" innovating at other companies expenses. Why else would you attack and levy with such energy at what the DOJ has ruled? Again, the notion of being "innovative" applies not specifically to "products" that a company has made, but allso to that companies conduct. It's like applying a so-called theory to only one aspect of a problem, and then creating an entire new one for another aspect of the same problem. In science, this is not looked upon favorably. A GOOD theory is one which works for more than one aspect of the said problem at hand; a bad theory does not. Microsoft's "theory" of operation in the realm of being "innovative" is likewise, a bad theory. -Tony
