Skip to main content
It’s like a hanging set to music, except you just know that there’s no real chance that the condemned man, in this case, Microsoft, will ever take the drop.
On Wednesday following 30,000, yes, you read it right first time, 30,000 largely critical comments made about their controversial antitrust settlement by competitors and individuals during the Tunney review process, Microsoft and the US Justice Department have filed a second revised proposed settlement with the court charged with deciding whether it is in the public interest.

The amendments, according to Client Server News the edits “consist of stuff like adding the adjective "unbiased" to the provision requiring Windows to launch other people's middleware. It's supposed to clarify beyond a shadow of a doubt that the trigger points in Windows will be impartial as to whether it's Microsoft or non-Microsoft middleware”.

Meanwhile, in a presumably fruitless attempt to head off the out- for-blood remedy hearing that the nine dissident states are insisting on, Microsoft has also filed a motion asking the court to dismiss their case.

I ask you, do we really care anymore? Does justice make a difference if you have $36 billion in the bank? Of course it doesn’t and why did anyone believe it did. At least though it will be difficult in the future for any technology giant to behave again as Microsoft did in the nineties, without being called to account a great deal faster than it was. And anyway, there’s Enron to worry about now.

The last ten years should have taught all of us a lesson. We had Windows and the Internet and the great Dot Com gold rush, which left most of the people I know out of pocket and wondering where their common sense had gone. Like Dr Frankenstein, we created the Microsofts' of this world and then hid behind the veil of plausible deniability, when Microsoft used its considerable muscle to build the monopoly that gave us the software we were asking of it.

Now there’s no going back. There’s every sign that tomorrow will be an even more of a Microsoft world than today and like some latter-day Faustus that’ s the bargain we made when we threw out OS/2 in favour of Windows. It’s called progress of course and if governments aren’t strong enough to stand in front of this moving train we might as well get used to the idea of the software industry being divvied-up between a handful of well-known companies.

After all, it’s no different to Kellogs in the cornflake business. Winner takes all I’m afraid.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.


In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …

The Nature of Nurture?

Recently, I found myself in a fascinating four-way Twitter exchange, with Professor Adam Rutherford and two other science-minded friends The subject, frequently regarded as a delicate one, genetics and whether there could exist an unknown but contributory genetic factor(s) or influences in determining what we broadly understand or misunderstand as human intelligence.

I won’t discuss this subject in any great detail here, being completely unqualified to do so, but I’ll point you at the document we were discussing, and Rutherford’s excellent new book, ‘A Brief History of Everyone.”

What had sparked my own interest was the story of my own grandfather, Edmond Greville; unless you are an expert on the history of French cinema, you are unlikely to have ever hear of him but he still enjoys an almost cult-like following for his work, half a century after his death.

I've been enjoying the series "Genius" on National Geographic about the life of Albert Einstein. The four of us ha…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…