Re: Common carriers Re: A letter to Joe

John Boyer (
Mon, 18 May 1998 19:24:47 -0500

At 06:32 PM 5/18/98 -0500, you wrote:
>> It's just a big money and power grab. Period.
>Nonsense. Nobody who is watching this case expects anything to happen
>other than injunctive relief followed by modifications to business
>practices. Nobody expects the antitrust suits to seek any sort of
>actual or punitive damages. The issue is simple: has Microsoft
>violated existing antitrust / anticompetitive laws? If so, they need to
>come into compliance with those laws. So, I don't see how this is a
>money and power grab at all. It's simply a matter of prosecuting the
>laws we have. Maybe those laws are wrong, but they are what they are.
I didn't mean to imply that there wouls be lawsuits that would result in
any kind of damages, heaven forbid!
But, there is a great deal of money involved here. I don't belive for a
second that this is about law and principle, its about money.

>> 5) ... People buy MS products because they get the job done at a
>reasonable price.]
>You're confusing consumer and corporate buying dynamics. People don't
>buy MS, corporations do --- and the rest of us get stuck in a no-choice
>world as a result of a complex feedback loop. ........
Which is a nice way of saying that consumers are mindless sheep. I just
don't buy it. For example, if my company car is a Dodge Neon I am even more
likely to go out and buy something like a Cobra for my personal use.

> So, IMO, people do *not* buy MS products as a rule
>because they get the job done at a reasonable price (though they may be
>just that) but rather because there are increasingly fewer
>alternatives. If you want a scapegoat for that situation, blame Apple
>for not winning the hearts of those corporate buyers back in the
>mid-late 80s, or the UNIX vendors for being such a nation divided and
>focusing on the high end during that timeframe... or whatever.

So, lets use federal intervention to go after the ones who succeed?
Even while you freely admit that most of their success is because of the
bungles of their competitors and
not because of lawlessness?
If anti-trust laws are being broken, that should be dealt with. But I'm
telling you, this is
turning into a witch hunt.

>Let me pose a number (6) for your list....
>(6) They are technically savvy and like building great, non-vertical
>software *products.* They believe that they want to be able to do just
>that --- build products --- as a career, and believe they should be able
>to fund, grow, and prosper from companies created to do just that, and
>believe that Microsoft's ravenous appetite and tendency to move in every
>possible interesting product direction prevents their ability to do that
6) They are proponents of "managed" Kapitalism.

from the bunker of the "Boyer compound",

PS. Interesting coincidence, I just got a note that Intuits former CEO will
be joining a San Jose startup owned by a friend of mine. He is actually
gonna BUY IN, purchasing stock in this miniscule company that is only
marginally profitable. Apparently, Microsoft's tactics with Intuit hasn't
scared him. ;-)