ODF, MS and MASS: Now you see the dots (and now you don't)

Trying to be objective and avoiding the label of just another MS basher is one one thing. But ignoring MS's ongoing status as a Law breaker on three continents is not helping anyone. Why isn't anyone writing about why they are even allowed to give software instead of money?

Weren't they in trouble in some South American country as well? Probably weren't convicted though. That would make four Continents.

Don't let Ballmer any where near Antartica. He might start throwing chairs at penguins, That would be criminal, I think. :)

North America, Asia, Europe, Africa (false advertising there, not anti-trust or anti-competitive). Don't know about South America.

It was not criminal, just a competitor saying Microsoft was unfair. https://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/08-25-04CADES...

That would be a civil matter unless the government prosecutors decide to intervene.

Of course this is the statement from Microsoft, so who knows what the situation was without spin doctoring?

From the Microsoft Press Pass page: > In every case, Microsoft works closely to the justice and acts responsibly, listening to authorities, customers and partners.

Except in the US, where even they admit they have not managed to meet the conditions of their anti-trust terms. Or in the EU, where they have been found lacking in their anti-trust terms. And how closely would you say they are working with the Government of Korea, since they threatened to withdraw their software from the market?

> listening to authorities, customers and partners.

Well, that part is probably true... What they do with the info is something else.

Found a report on MS's trouble in South Africa regarding their advertisment:

"Microsoft ad pulled by ASA" http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/business/2003/0303201315.asp...

"The ad under the spotlight. Its caption states: 'Microsoft software is carefully designed to keep your company's valuable information in, and unauthorised people and viruses out. Which means that your data couldn't really be safer, even if you kept it in a safe. Which is great news for the survival of your company. But tragic news for hackers.'"

Pretty easy to see why the ASA ruled it was "unsubstantiated and misleading".

"In every case, Microsoft works closely to the justice and acts responsibly, listening to authorities, customers and partners"

dcparris you are reading that wrong. Of course that is excusable. It is a press release it is meant to imply meaning without actually having any meaning. It is meant to make you think they have committed to something while they are really just blowing hot air.

Let's review the statement in parts:

"Microsoft works closely to the justice" We're close, don't expect us to ever get there, but hey we're not murderers.

"acts responsibly" Yes we are very good actors. However, if you read our EULA, you will note that we have no responsibility for anything.

"listening to authorities, customers and partners" Yes we listen. did you know you can hire newly graduated English and fine arts majors for like $10.00/hr and give them a job listening to people. They are very pleasant little listeners. Do you expect us to act on what we hear? Oh come on, that is really asking too much.

> Yes we listen. did you know you can hire newly graduated English and fine arts majors for like $10.00/hr and give them a job listening to people. They are very pleasant little listeners.

So _that's_ who was listening to me when I asked about how to remove the obstinate HP driver from the Windows 98 registry! Yes, yes. They did a great job of listening. So, was I supposed to ask to be passed on to the guy who knew how to solve the problem?

Thanks, number6x, for setting me straight. How dare I malign Microsoft so!