	Eric's Home Page
Menu: Home UP EDITORIALS Another Linux Laptop More Scumbags Join the EFF Java woes Linux Laptop Die, threads! Welfare Whores I bought it, it's mine. MS Trial Verdict Linux Desktop Letter to Bob Robb MS Myths 1-3 Windows? No, KDE! Benchmarketing 101 Benchmarks Galore! Mindcraft Reality Check Open Source Economics FUD 101 Commoditization Markets & Microsoft Don't Cry for Bill Links Contact Info My Resume My Public Key EMAIL Eric BadTux Portal[et]	An Open Letter to Journalists Dear Sir: Congratulations. You are the latest person to be duped by Microsoft's latest PR campaign. To whit: Microsoft as victim. Microsoft is no innocent victim. Since the early 90's the U.S. Department of Justice has been monitoring Microsoft's conduct.. Microsoft has been aware of this monitoring at all times, and has been warned continuously about its conduct. Microsoft even signed a consent decree in 1995 promising not to engage in anti-competitive conduct such as "bundling". And promptly re-defined the word "bundling" to flout said decree. In short, sir, the Department of Justice and Judge Jackson had no choice but to do what they did. Microsoft willfully and with disdain repeatedly violated the law, despite being repeatedly warned not to. Microsoft behaved like the smart-mouthed punks that I saw in my teaching career, who would go into the court room and smart-mouth the judge (who after all was some stuffy old fogey, smart-mouthed punks always think they're smarter than the law), and Microsoft got slammed down just like those smart-mouthed punks did, and for the exact same reason -- the law cannot, and will not, tolerate those who treat it with contempt. This is not a matter of consumer harm. Microsoft duped you when they attempted to say it was a matter of consumer harm. Arguably, Microsoft has done as much for the computer industry as any other company in recent history, and should be applauded for that. But this isn't a matter of how much good they've done. This is a matter of law, and respect for the law. If you believe that a law is not appropriate, there are legal mechanisms for getting the law changed. Microsoft, however, made no such attempt -- rather, they violated the law, willfully, flagrantly, and with utter disdain, and should be punished accordingly. I realize that Microsoft has money, and the smart-mouthed punks I used to teach didn't. But that should not change the result -- a penalty which hopefully will either teach Microsoft to obey the law, or remove their ability to break the law. Sincerely, Eric Lee Green

Eric's Home Page

An Open Letter to Journalists

Dear Sir:

Congratulations. You are the latest person to be duped by Microsoft's latest PR campaign. To whit: Microsoft as victim.

Microsoft is no innocent victim. Since the early 90's the U.S. Department of Justice has been monitoring Microsoft's conduct.. Microsoft has been aware of this monitoring at all times, and has been warned continuously about its conduct. Microsoft even signed a consent decree in 1995 promising not to engage in anti-competitive conduct such as "bundling". And promptly re-defined the word "bundling" to flout said decree.

In short, sir, the Department of Justice and Judge Jackson had no choice but to do what they did. Microsoft willfully and with disdain repeatedly violated the law, despite being repeatedly warned not to. Microsoft behaved like the smart-mouthed punks that I saw in my teaching career, who would go into the court room and smart-mouth the judge (who after all was some stuffy old fogey, smart-mouthed punks always think they're smarter than the law), and Microsoft got slammed down just like those smart-mouthed punks did, and for the exact same reason -- the law cannot, and will not, tolerate those who treat it with contempt.

This is not a matter of consumer harm. Microsoft duped you when they attempted to say it was a matter of consumer harm. Arguably, Microsoft has done as much for the computer industry as any other company in recent history, and should be applauded for that. But this isn't a matter of how much good they've done. This is a matter of law, and respect for the law. If you believe that a law is not appropriate, there are legal mechanisms for getting the law changed. Microsoft, however, made no such attempt -- rather, they violated the law, willfully, flagrantly, and with utter disdain, and should be punished accordingly.

I realize that Microsoft has money, and the smart-mouthed punks I used to teach didn't. But that should not change the result -- a penalty which hopefully will either teach Microsoft to obey the law, or remove their ability to break the law.

Sincerely,
Eric Lee Green

Created with PHP 4. Last modified Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:27:39 -0500.

Menu:

An Open Letter to Journalists