Ed Brill

Post a Comment

1. 1  Paul Robichaux http://www.robichaux.net/blog | 1/14/2008 3:05:44 PM

   George Washington said of government that "it is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master." I know it's probably very emotionally satisfying for you to see MS get taken over the hurdles by the EU, but (as Google recently discovered), one of these days *IBM* might be in the EU's crosshairs. I'm against this kind of government meddling in markets, even when it prevents redress against clear injustice (as it has so far in the Airbus v Boeing subsidy dispute). Be careful what you wish for...

1. 2  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 1/14/2008 3:54:15 PM

   Paul, I sleep better at night knowing that there is a big difference in what I see other organizations do in the name of business and what my employer's policies and ethos are. I get asked from time to time, "why didn't you match ____'s offer?" or questions like that. And when my answer is "because we just don't do that" (and, unlike some behavior I've seen, when I say we don't do that, we really don't, it isn't just lip service), I feel right about my job.

1. 3  Flemming Riis  | 1/14/2008 5:07:34 PM

1. 4  Flemming Riis  | 1/14/2008 5:09:33 PM

   sorry about the empty post.

   Prehaps Brussels should take a look at the following { Link } , at least that cover part of it

1. 5  Vitor Pereira http://www.vitor-pereira.com | 1/14/2008 5:13:47 PM

   @Ed - It really says it all when you have to explain it like you just did.

   Anyway, I'm sure they all sleep well, must be a job requirement.

1. 6  Wild Bill http://www.billbuchan.com | 1/14/2008 6:00:54 PM

   I think this just reflects on MS's business practices.

   How much longer can MS shareholders take this continued uncertainty on their investments?

   And how long before we can see a 'Steve Ballmers last day at Microsoft' video.

   ---* Bill

1. 7  Mike Brown  | 1/14/2008 6:10:53 PM

   But hasn't IBM already been through all this, during the anti-trust cases of the sixties and seventies? (The days when the US Dept of Justice had a back bone).

   IBM took its medicine and, apparently, learned its lesson; something that Microsoft seems unable to do. E.g., Microsoft has recently been referred to the UK Office of Fair Trading for (amongst other things) trying to charge UK schools a licence fee for every PC that they have, whether those PCs have Microsoft software on them or not.

   Cheers,

   - Mike

1. 8  Dave Madison  | 1/15/2008 11:42:59 PM

   @2. Hey, that's great, Ed. You work for a company you believe to have high moral standards. But how is that in any way shape or form relevant to Paul's comment? You are talking about how a company chooses to do business. Fantastic. Paul is talking about govt. telling companies how they should do business, which, at least in the view George Washington and the like, was area govt had no business meddling. Let the market decide which businesses succeed or fail. Paul is simply saying that given the free reign the EU seems to have, there's no guarantee they won't someday come after IBM for whatever reason they choose. Regardless of how YOU feel about IBM's business practices.

   @7 actually the case went from the 50's to around 82. And then there's IBM's involvement with The Third Riech...but, I digress.

1. 9  Ian Scott  | 1/16/2008 2:54:56 AM

   @8 - You sound sore. Ancestors of the British Head of State had involvement with the Third Reich as did pioneers of the US space program but that has nothing to do with the price of fish or proprietary file formats. The world has moved on.

   I'm not a fan of government or quasi-government involvement in markets but it's naive to suggest they won't or shouldn't involve themselves in order to protect their citizens interests. At this moment in time the British Government is considering the anathema of nationalising a bank which recently had a run against it on account of sub prime loan exposure. The British taxpayer is already supporting that financial institution to the tune of £2,000 per (taxpaying) head and the reason for that intervention was to prevent a complete loss of confidence in the entire banking system. I digress.

   Ed's not a stupid man so I suspect he understood full well what Paul was saying. I think the point here is that Microsoft seems to be perpetually in government cross hairs. IBM used to be likewise in government sights but it no longer is and there must be reasons for that. I have a very high regard for IBM these days. It wasn't always so but if it continues to conduct itself as per Ed's comment @2 I see no reason why that should change. My only caveat to that would be "so long as, if and when Microsoft is no longer perceived as to be abusing its market position, IBM continues to stay good and demonstrate that it has learned it's lessons".

1. 10  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 1/16/2008 3:10:43 AM

   @8 you say "area govt had no business meddling. Let the market decide which businesses succeed or fail"

   I hope you haven't been taking Zocor or Vytorin.

1. 11  Paul Robichaux http://www.robichaux.net/blog | 1/16/2008 10:31:03 AM

   @10: OK, sure. Office software == life-critical medicines. Gotcha.

1. 12  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 1/16/2008 11:00:01 AM

   And how do you make the decision on what is or is not appropriate for government involvement? Office software is used by almost every computer user in the whole world, a much bigger consumer base than life-critical medicines. Why shouldn't governments consider the size of impact?

1. 13  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 1/16/2008 1:14:36 PM

   @Paul - I very strongly believe it is the government's responsibility to protect consumers from predatory businesses. If you illegally prevent competing products from coming to market (as has been proven in Microsoft's case) consumers don't know they would prefer something else. Government *must* step in and protect consumers' interests.

1. 14  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 1/16/2008 1:21:30 PM

   @8 - The DOJ brought suit against IBM in 1969, and it was dismissed in 1981. A consent decree was in place from 1956 until 1996. It was phased out and finally ended in 2001. { Link }

1. 15  Dave Madison  | 1/17/2008 2:00:06 AM

   @13) Yea? Tell that to folks like Disney, Coke, Pepsi, Nike, the NFL, the NBA, MLB. There are plenty of examples of predatory pricing the govt turns a blind eye to. Ever wonder why "Fred Jones Cola" doesn't get the same shelf space as Coke or Pepsi? Ever wonder why Coke and Pepsi can't be on sale the same week? Why shouldn't I be able to buy a Pepsi at McDonald's instead of a Coke? Why can't I tell Mercedes-Benz I want XM instead of Sirius as a sat radio option?

   @10 I don't recall the last death caused by Notes, do you? The example you use falls under regulation, not telling a business what they can and can't sell. Now, if you want to the govt to start regulating how software is developed, have fun with that. But I don't think you do. Otherwise IBM might not have been able to make Notes 8 look and feel like Outlook 98.

1. 16  Ian Scott  | 1/17/2008 3:53:09 AM

   @15 - Ah. Sounds like you're sore about Notes looking and feeling like Outlook. I feel your pain although I don't share it.

   Anyway, if you read Charles @13 again I think you'll see that he refers to 'predatory business' and that he doesn't mention 'pricing' at all. Still, even if he had mentioned 'pricing' and even if Government does turn a blind eye to some predatory practices I think the point stands that Governments do have a legitimate interest in protecting their citizens. My view is that even if Government doesn't intervene in all cases that doesn't mean it should intervene in none. Are you really saying that Government should never ever intervene or that Government should offer its citizens no protection from companies which abuse their market dominance? Let's not forget that the European Commission did rule against Microsoft early in 2004 and that an appeals court upheld that decision last September which is to say that Microsoft was found guilty of abusing its market dominance. That's a fact and had the EU not taken action they would have got away with it. Think about what you are saying, please.

   The banking example I cited affects far fewer customers than the life saving medicine's Ed points to and it doesn't fall under any legislation. If the bank had collapsed it wouldn't have killed anyone either - although some people may have committed suicide. The Government intervened in that case to prevent panic spreading to customers of other banks. There was very much a bigger picture to consider. While some may quarrel with the mechanics of what the British Government did, few here (in the UK) would argue that the Government should have done nothing and would have instead been better serving its citizens and businesses by risking a run on other banks. Now, that has nothing to do with predatory business practice but it is a clear case of a wider national interest. I could extend that national interest argument to include small start up businesses which might be the corporate giant of tomorrow but instead gets driven out of business by today's giants. I'm sorry, but protecting those businesses is a legitimate matter for any Government which seeks to ensure economic prosperity for the next generation. If you read the interesting link Charles posts @14 you'll find a hard to contest opinion there that asserts that if it were not for the consent decree there would be no Cisco, Oracle, Sun or Microsoft. It was presumably unpleasant medicine for IBM to swallow then but the consent decree was a good thing for all.

   If you want to know why Pepsi can't be purchased at McDonald's or why you can't tell Mercedes-Benz you want XM instead of Sirius I think you would be better addressing your query to McDonalds and Mercedes-Benz. I doubt it's appropriate for an IBM executive to answer those questions on their behalf. At least, though, you can go to another burger outlet or another car manufacturer. The EU's case is that Microsoft is preventing the customer from going elsewhere. That case can't be defended here I'm afraid; it's already been decreed that a Government body and perhaps the courts will decide the case. You're going to have to accept that even if you don't like it.

1. 17  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 1/17/2008 7:24:12 AM

   Dave, you must be so happy to be back at Microsoft.

1. 18  Paul Robichaux http://www.robichaux.net/blog | 1/18/2008 11:45:19 AM

   @12, @13: let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Notes/Domino 9.x experiences an unprecedented resurgence and reduces Exchange to a 10% market share. (I know, it's unlikely, but bear with me.) Do y'all not see that the same arguments being marshaled against Microsoft-- which all boil down to "Microsoft won't give us details on their interfaces so we can build replacements for their products"-- would then be directed at IBM? I mean, IBM doesn't publish the details of the protocol the Notes client uses to talk to the server, right? Don't you find it a little odd that no one in the EU seems to be asking for those details, even though Notes' market share is close to Exchange's in that market?

   This to me is nothing more than a case of barstool economics.

1. 19  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 1/18/2008 3:15:24 PM

   Paul, I don't think the issue is about the server side... my understanding is that the issue being looked at is more around how Outlook is a required (e.g. not optional) part of buying Microsoft Office, and that making that client work on a server other than Microsoft's is the issue being discussed. The question appears to be one of adjacency of the market for e-mail driving the inclusion of that e-mail tool in the Office suite.

   There is a published Notes API that is broader than MAPI so I am not sure the protocol piece is the issue.

1. 20  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 1/18/2008 3:21:15 PM

   @18 - I do believe companies have a right to protect their intellectual property, but not when they use that create a coercive monopoly. Microsoft's monopoly in the desktop OS and office software markets is not a natural monopoly, it's coercive. If IBM eventually ends up with an overwhelming majority stake of the messaging market I am confident it won't be through mafioso practices. They already learned their lesson the hard way.

   The ECIS inquiry regarding the Outlook/Exchange protocol is just that: an inquiry. When a company has been found guilty of abusing their marketshare in one segment it's only logical that it be questioned whether they also used their weight to unfairly influence other segments. I don't think it will go anyhere, but I don't fault the ECIS for asking the question.

1. 21  Ian Scott  | 1/19/2008 5:08:34 AM

   @18 - A note of caution in relation to IBM's future conduct is fine but, ultimately, it's all speculation and sounds like it's trying to deflect attention away from the situation Microsoft finds itself in. There's nothing particularly wrong or errant in that but be clear the EU and the courts will deal in facts and hard evidence not speculation and at the moment the hard fact is that Microsoft IS to be investigated and IBM is not to be investigate and there are contemporary reasons for that. It might rain tomorrow and it might not, no matter what the weather forecasters opine.

   Clearly I could be wrong here but I partly interpret Ed's comments as indicating that the IBM he sees on a daily basis respects the principle of past findings against them and evidences lessons learned; and by posting the links he did Charles implictly acknowledges those historic foibles too - as, indeed, he explicitly does @19.

   One day it might be Google that's being investigated and we might have Microsoft advocates identifying the benefits of medicine to them. Then again, if Google has learned from IBM's past or even Microsoft"s present and near future, maybe that won't happen.

   The EU might not find against Microsoft and if that's what happens it will bring a clarity to discussions around these matters and there will surely be consequences. Equally, if it finds against Microsoft there will be consequences and perhaps it will put an end to the private accusations that are frequently levelled against Microsoft. Either way that won't be a bad thing for the consumer even if it is not a good or better thing for one or more technology vendors in the short term.

   I can assure you that the EU does not believe this is a matter of barstool economics. Irrespective of whether the EU finds for or against Microsoft or somewhere in between we will all have to accept and respect their decision. The EU believes it has a legitimate interest in these matters and that's just about all there is to it.

   One thing I must note even if it is irrelevant to the point of this discussion is how it sounds increasingly like Microsoft advocates sense themselves to be on the back foot while the opposite is true for IBM. Have a good Lotusphere, gentlemen!

1. 22  Ian Scott  | 1/19/2008 5:39:25 AM

   Oops. @20. Sorry, Charles.

   Ed - a preview button would be a great enhancement to this blog.