Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: Anti-Microsoft sentiment

Author:Joshua Allen
Posted:9/16/2000; 6:43:07 PM
Topic:Debunking the OSS Bazaar?
Msg #:21412 (In response to 21384)
Prev/Next:21411 / 21413

I trust you're being flippant here because I assure you global business interests aren't settling any disputes formerly settled by "the previous system." I submit that global businesses settle no disputes, merely create new ones. Settling disputes is the role of governments and politics.

From my POV, it seems very clear that economic weapons are being used more heavily in international disputes than are weapons of war these days. I also think we are reaching a point of globalization where it will be less and less common for city-states to resport to warfare. Global businesses also often influence the ways that diplomacy settles debate, and the difference between government and commerce is not really so clear anymore. There are, of course, things that "vote by ballot" takes care of very well, but there are also many things that "vote by dollar" (meaning vote by decision to purchase) takes care of well. The balance of power between government and commerce is still being worked out, and will be one of the most interesting things about the next few decades to watch. When government settles certain types of dispute, it often means war, massacre, certain racial groups being confined to overcrowded jails, and lots of other things. The only thing substantively different between business and government is that government has the power to coerce. Many problems of collective activity do not need this power.

And allow me to append something - you mentioned in sports it is allowed to interfere with your opponents ability to win. I submit to you that this is also not true. There are rules governing sports and referees who enforce those rules and penalties are exacted for infractions. Sporting conduct is bounded by rules, the same is true in business, something MS has only recently come to deal with. Time will tell if they accept it.

Now I trust that you are being flippant. It is kind of slimey to insinuate that I was saying rule-breaking was allowed. There is nothing in my argument that said breaking rules was assumed. The rules of many sports allow you to interfere with the other team's ability to win. It is wrong to say that rules prevent this. Trying to twist this into a debate about rule-breaking not only misses what I thought could be a very interesting discussion about what sorts of rules were permitted, but changes the topic completely. It's also kind of stupid to imply that Microsoft has only just realized that there are rules. The legal system has not yet finished deciding if there were any violations of the rules (although I respect the fact that you and many other IT professionals have made up your minds). Microsoft has always been well aware that there are penalties for infractions (and even in the outrageous claim of ignorance, we all know that ignorance is not an excuse in the legal system). Obviously Microsoft believes that no infractions were committed, and our legal system does a very good (and fair) job of determing guilt or innocence. Luckily, our legal system makes it OK for Microsoft to disagree with the accusers until the final ruling is made. Sitting around debating guilt/innocence of an ongoing trial is really a waste of time and not something I find very interesting.

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:43 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.