Trash this if you don't want to read it. It's an editorial from CMP Tech
Web, a technology investor's online market letter. Does this corporate
attitude on the part of Microsoft seem familiar to those who've been
waiting to hear MS' definitive patch answer?
<<The Wise Guy Defense
(01/15/98)
By Jeff Pundyk, editor, CMPnet
Before the law students go and write up the case study of Microsoft vs.
the Department of Justice, they should give me a call. Ive got the
perfect title for Microsofts strategy: "The Wise Guy Defense."
With every day of this weeks contempt hearing, Microsoft sounds more
and more like those guys who sat in class and snickered because they
absolutely knew they were smarter than the teacher.
You remember those guys. They were bored and disinterested in class --
and usually aced their tests with time to spare. The teacher had no
authority over these guys. They just plain didnt recognize authority,
and there was nothing the teacher could do about it.
This week, Microsoft has been in court arguing that it honored a court
order to offer computer makers Windows 95 without Internet Explorer.
Microsoft says to do so, it had to ship faulty copies of Win 95.
Separating the operating system and the browser, Microsoft contends,
breaks the OS because the two are so intertwined.
So, whos at fault for the bad OSes? The court, for writing the order in
the first place, of course, Microsoft says.
Cant you just see the smirks on the faces of the defense team when they
thought of that one? No? Listen to this exchange:
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson: "It was absolutely clear to you that I
entered an order that required you to distribute a product that would
not work? Is that what youre telling me?"
David Cole, vice president of Internet Technologies, Microsoft: "In
plain English, yes. We followed the order. It wasnt my place to
consider the consequences of that."
Boy, that Wise Guy Defense sure is tricky -- alienate the judge, the
computer manufacturers, and the public in one fell swoop. Microsofts
performance during the hearing is disingenuous. Its got the feel of bad
faith. And worse, Microsoft doesnt seem to care. Microsoft has always
been the company we love to hate. But despite the knocks -- it makes
second-rate software, it lacks innovation, it engages in suspect
business practices -- Microsoft has always had our grudging respect as
that great American icon: the Giant of Industry. Weve been willing to
forgive it almost anything by virtue of its sheer accomplishment.
But thats over now that Microsoft has put its arrogance on public
display. Win, lose, or draw, this week, Microsoft lost the benefit of
the doubt. Bad news, Bill. We all have to sit in class. Nobody likes a
wise guy.>>
This seems to be the attitude of a lot of software producers. THEY are on
the cutting edge, THEY are blazing a trail into the brave new world of
computing, and they should NOT be held the same standards as producers of
"ordinary" goods (standards such as: "the product must function"). It
almost seems enough to show the world the
potential of a program and then move on to another milestone. That would be
fine but for the fact that people pay hard-earned money for their little
experiments.
The "Year 2000 Problem" is, I believe, a perfect illustration of this
general attitude. Get it up, get it running, get the acclaim (and the
money); then let some other S.O.B. worry about such day-to-day concerns as:
how long will it run,? what will it do when it runs,? etc... Maybe we will
have to wait for the second (non-baby boomer)
generation of programmers (the ones whose parents haven't constantly told
them that they are infallible geniuses) before we get any solid, "workaday"
software.
That's my two cents.
Microsoft sounds more
Weren't they directed to specifically remove ALL of IE,
with the judge and other side ignoring warnings that to do
so and completely comply with the order would result in
an inferior product?
Did an inferior product result? (How strange)
Were compromise suggestions made and blithly ignored
with - do it or else, we are in charge here - type
arrogance by the judge and opposing sides?
Does anyone else think that a reasonable, workable
compromise will eventually be reached, delayed considerably
by the attitude of the judge and Justice Department?
I don't know any of this as fact, as I have not followed
the case closely. But I would not be at all surprised
to hear that my guesses are accurate.
Basically, this is my uninformed opinion based on sketchy
news reports as a buyer of complex software, and citizen.
Sort of like your opinion, falling in line with the slightly
more informed opinion (let's assume) you quoted.
It differs from yours though, in that for my money,
the silly ones here are the judge and Justice Department
for trying to command performance (and a silly one at that)
in the first place.
Allowing Microsoft to leave in whatever elements of IE
they feel are necessary for the proper operation of
Win95, with IE disabled at whatever level is felt
appropriate by the court to insure that the country will
be 'saved from Microsoft' seems like where the court should have
been spending MY money to attain in the first place.
Assuming they really believe that MS is somehow forcing me
to use IE4. (Which is REALLY a stupid concept. You can't
expect me to take people who believe this seriously, do you?)
<Note: This message was typed on a Win95 computer into
a Netscape 3.0 window. This computer has seen IE4 installed, and
subsequently disabled. Imagine that. This entire case is a
waste of my tax money.>
- Matt
I think that what Micro$$$oft did was to take a very cynical, smartass
approach to
the directive. To continue the analogy from Mr. Brown's post: Micro$$$oft
is like a
misbehaving schoolboy who, when told to "straighten up," immediately
proceeds to
lie on the floor and make his body rigid; thus complying with the LITERAL
interpretation of the teacher's command and doing so in a spirit of mockery
and disrespect. It is my understanding that Micro$$$oft, in removing ALL of
Internet Explorer, removed files that are common to, or shared by, both
Windows 98 and
IE 4.0. That seems a little arrogant to me, and I know that if I were the
judge in this
case somebody's ass would be in jail on contempt charges. Back to the
analogy:
I will admit that I did occasionally get a little chuckle from some of the
antics of these spoiled class-clowns, but never so much joy as seeing one
of the little bastards get his ***paddled good.
Having said all that; I don't personally have a big problem with
Micro$$$oft's attitude towards the Justice System. What infuriates me is
that they display the same arrogance in dealing with me after taking a lot
of my money (just try to get even the most basic support directly from
Micro$$$oft on ANY of their products and you'll see what I mean). It seems
that they feel they are doing me a real favor by being in business and
providing me with products that will enlighten me and enrich my life, and
that I should just take what I'm given (yeah, for $55 in the case of CPR)
and be glad that I've got anything at all. To hell with that.
I guess that makes it 4 cents now.
Regards,
W. Spilman
>The "Year 2000 Problem" is, I believe, a perfect illustration of this
>general attitude. Get it up, get it running, get the acclaim (and the
>money); then let some other S.O.B. worry about such day-to-day concerns as:
>how long will it run,? what will it do when it runs,? etc... Maybe we will
>have to wait for the second (non-baby boomer)
>generation of programmers
Actually, no, the Year 2000 Problem was directly caused by
bean-counters who wanted to save on then-expensive memory and disk
space. Programmers knew it wasn't a sound design, but
financially-based decisions like this are almost always out of the
programmer's control.
Joe
