Microsoft Fights to Weaken Washington Anti-Spam Law 363
An anonymous reader writes "According to the Seattle Times, Microsoft (probably their MSN arm) is pushing for a change in at least Washington's anti-spam law. Some analysts claim that the changes contain holes that will allow Microsoft to be exempt from the law." Odd that Microsoft is simultaneously trying to stop spam sent to Hotmail users, and to make sure that it can send unsolicited commercial email without penalties.
Odd? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's not. Laws that apply to everyone but you are very handy.
I'd rather have (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd rather have (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'd rather have (Score:5, Interesting)
To them it's very simple. If they get their way they can make more money while cutting costs. Its what any business should do in America right? Personally i take this as evidence that our system is flawed. I am not going to bitch and complain about our system and exploitation but i do believe we should fight companies that try this, keep them in check.
eh comrades, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is also important to remember that the opposite extremes (socialism and communism) suck in that the community exploits the individual. Corporations, despite their wanton disregard for human rights are still bound by the laws of profit. We need to start taking advantage of this.
For example, start a petition for network admins that would allow Office attachements if, and only if, the spec was publicly released. If enough of us, the ones that control mail servers, do this it could force M$ into releasing the spec to save Office's viability.
Winshit boycotts would not work. We are not the sort of people who buy winshit, we are either boycotting it for ethical reasons of using a warez copy.
The Warez industry has been decimated by the OSS movement. Who would want to hurt a good ol' honest business like that!?
Re:eh comrades, eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Alas, while many of us may control mail servers, far fewer of us have the right to keep control over those servers. Microsoft know that, so when it comes time to fight the 'Office Document Boycott', it won't be the admins they go to with their FUD, but the people with money who know nothing, but technically control the machine.
On top of that, there's a good chance MS wouldn't have to do anything. If I work at company A, and my CEO says "Company B's CEO keeps sending me this email, but I never receive it", he's not going to be impressed while you spout off about freedom of information, or whatever. He's going to tell you to stop fucking around with his equipment, or set you on the road to a new job.
Don't get me wrong, I'm more or less on your side... I needed Word
IMO, the goal shouldn't be enforced 'opening' of the existing specs, but a requirement that specs are not made needlessly complex! DOC is a fucking nightmare, and all so maybe 0.004% of the population can embed links to WAV files or whatever. It would be incredibly easy to make Office documents XML based, and a lot more simple to read and write than they are now.
Time to change the icon (Score:3, Insightful)
"I don't break the law... I am the law!!"
Erm... on second thought, scratch that... might be too close to the truth to be funny.
Re:Time to change the icon (Score:3, Funny)
I'm curious.. has a lawyer from microsoft, or a lawyer for Bill, ever complained about that icon mis-representing his client as a ruthless, un-caring, threat to humanity?
Ya, I thought not... no evidence to back up the claim he's not any of the above...
Bad humor on a Tuesday... what can I say?
Re:Time to change the icon (Score:3, Funny)
Honestly, if the Borg ships ran on Windows, they wouldn't have stood a chance in battle, much less get out of their own solar system without breaking down.
Re:Time to change the icon (Score:3, Insightful)
And Bill Gates as borg--Mr. "You Will Be Assimilated"--is any further from the truth?
Re:Odd? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. I just can't help pointing out that in a discussion a couple weeks back, the absolutists among us felt that the whole spam problem could be solved by simply shoving a bill through Congress.
When folks like me said that it wasn't going to be quite that simple, we were met with scorn. I actually said that any national antispam measure would, by the time it became law, be riddled with exceptions, made for the benefit of powerful corporations like MS.
Am I a prophet or what?
Re:Odd? (Score:4, Funny)
2. ???
3. Prophet!
Point out any government limitations and you are bound to be proven right.
Re:Odd? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the only spam on the internet came from a Microsoft IP address, it would make a spam block list really easy to maintain. The DMA, MS, or any other corp. can push all the spam legislation they want, but it will not change the fact that people hate spam.
You're absolutely right about them trying to push laws with exceptions just for them. My theory is that they think if they can get rid of all the pr0n, herbal v1a6ra, pen1s enlarger, mortgage spam, it will give them enough control to try and legitimize email marketing. I'm not so optimistic. There would have to be a lengthy moratorium on all email marketing before it could ever be considered socially acceptable. Even then, many would still hate it, myself included.
And if that spam legislation includes anything forbidding spam block lists or filters, that's the day I stop using email.
Re:Odd? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Odd? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, BTW, MS is not the only one. Yahoo is another huge seller of addresses. In fact, they may be bigger, but I am not sure. I wish congress would have done more to address the texas-style accounting and had all corps show more of where their income comes from.
Re:Odd? (Score:5, Interesting)
I had to deal with a company that gave up trying to block spammers from hacking into their (windows) servers for spam-routers. All I could do was watch as, over a period of months, just about everybody seemed to block emails from their IP address. Hotmail was one of the few exceptions -- certainly it was the only name I recognized.
I never could figure out why HotMail never banned them.
wise man once say, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wise man once say, (Score:5, Funny)
odd? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not odd at all. That's just how microsoft works. They want to protect their monopoly, and perhaps extend it to new products (Microsoft Brand Penis enlargers anyone?).
Microsoft has never played by the rules before, I don't know why anyone would think they'd start doing it now. . .
Re:odd? (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, this time the bloat would be a good thing.
Re:odd? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:odd? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:odd? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps not the best brand name for that type of product.
Re:odd? (Score:4, Funny)
Bugs? (Score:2)
Re:odd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting a spam law written that will past first ammendment scruitiny is not that easy. The biggest problem is the requirement that any measure be as narrow as possible. The junk fax law has been found uconstitutional in one court on that basis, the judge in question is an oppinionated ass but it is quite likely that the courts will ultimately decide that banning all adverts was unnecessarily broad.
Anti spam legislation is not entirely useless but is not going to be a panacea. I believe it will significantly slow the growth of spam and increase spam sender costs. It will allow them less time to respond to the technical measures in development. But equally we must be very careful that legitiate bulk senders don't get hammered with bogus claims.
Re:odd? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not supporting spam -- as a mailing list administrator, and recipient of mail for a well-known address, I hate spam. But I do not like to hear any proposals which assume that only bad people send lots of mail. It simply isn't true.
Re:odd? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK what do you call CNET, it is one of the largest bulk senders, all its newsletters are 100% opt in
What do you call Code Amber which distributes Amber alert warnings to opted in subscribers?
What do you call Amex, Ebay, and the hundreds of companies that use the web to do legitimate business with their customers?
I want my bills sent by email rather than snail mail. I want to be able to send and receive richly formatted HTML emails rather than teletype pieces of crud in monospace fonts.
I think that the blanket statements such as 'no bulk senders are legitimate' illustrate the real problem here, too many people have simplistic solutions that will eliminate spam for their proposers and people just like them but require everyone to adopt their limited uses
I think that type of attitude is giving in to the scum who send the spam.
Re:odd? Opt-in is not what we're talking about (Score:3, Insightful)
You apparently cannot read, I said that there were legitimate classes of bulk email sender. I did not say there were legitimate classes of bulk unsolicited email senders.
The term bulk email sender is a term of art in the world of anti-spam measures. It is used by Microsoft, AOL, CNET and others to refer to themselves.
Re:odd? (Score:5, Funny)
Why do I have that sadistic image of the device crashing and little Johnny turning blue?
Anyways, Microsoft doesn't need to sell any penis enlargers; they've got everyone by the balls already...
Bill 1618, Title III is NOT A REAL LAW (Score:5, Informative)
Odd? (Score:5, Funny)
1. We advertise MSN/Hotmail as anti-spam...
2. We spam the living snot out of every other ISP on the planet
3. We put neat little check boxes on our web based email pages that say "ULTIMATE ANTI_SPAM FILTER" and the like
4. Everyone switches to MSN/Hotmail
5. Profit.
So you see Microsoft has it all planned out...
QED...
Re:Odd? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you figure the average response to a bulk mailing is less than one percent, that's a whole lot of CD's that AOL is filling our landfills with.
I think there should be a law about the type of junk mail (physical) that can be sent. I 'spose I could just write "return to sender" on it and drop it in a mailbox.
Re:Odd? (Score:2, Informative)
According to this [junkbusters.com] it probably won't make it back to the sender anyway...
Wait a minute - missed a step (Score:4, Funny)
5. ??????
6. Profit!
How dare they! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How dare they! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (EXAMPLE!) (Score:5, Funny)
sex [slashdot.org]
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even though technically, I did sign up on their list way back when, this might end up being catagorized as SPAM, and as such, Microsoft may end up with one hell of a penalty... I'm of the opinion, that they are simply trying to cover their asses, since it's rather easy to claim what they sent is spam from one of the "I hate Microsoft" zealots, and real difficult for Microsoft to provide hard evidence that says, "Here, you opted in to be on your mailing list back in 1998"... See the potential problem to be screwed over by ANTI-MICROSOFT activists? It's not a plot to give Microsoft control over bulk unsolicited email distribution, it's just some lawyers and accountants going... HOLY CRAP! We need damage control, and we need it NOW!
Of course, that's just my opinion, and I've been wrong before...
Re:Why? (Score:2)
which judging from ashcrofts recent naziesque "raid" of $10 mil worth of "drug paraphenalia (sp?)" by shutting down 55 online headshops
is probably a good thing (funny how that story didn't make
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it has more do with MS wanting to send e-mails to Windows users about security updates, without people finding creative ways of suing them over it.
I doubt that my suggestion will go very far here because everybody knows MS's real intent is to be the primary service provider to people who want to work from home or desire longer penises.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
It's the only reason that we DON'T have M$/MSN/Hotmail brand penis and breast enlargements out there. Obviously there is a huge market for this kind of stuff and M$ wants to leverage their market position, file patents, and send out hordes of attack lawyers to consolidate their IP and marketshare.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course this comes down to the basics of economics (guns, booze, cars, etc) is a company responsible for the actions of it's customers? Does a company become liable if they don't shut down a users that violates the law or TOS in a timely manner? What is a timely manner? when does it become corporate negligence? How much investigation needs to be done before you shut someone off? How do you avoid mistakes?
I think this lobbying monies would be better spend to address these legal issues instead of removing tools from 'victims'
Re:Why? (Score:2)
ISP's MUST be held to SOME sort of liability. As it stands today, if a spammer has a T1 and starts pumping the spam, it can take weeks or months for ISP's to turn them off, or even result in no action at all from the spammers ISP - "hey, they are a paying customer, I don't give a shit".
Hotmail stops spam? (Score:2, Informative)
Vile Spam (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure his spam is pretty bad... bu the most vile on the planet? I doubt it. I bet that cmdrtaco@slashdot.org gets the vilest (sp?) spam on Earth.
--sex [slashdot.org]
Re:Vile Spam (Score:2)
If he didnt, HE DOES NOW.
Where is the logic? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does MS activly court spammers? Does MS actually SELL it's OWN SUBSCRIBER LISTS to spammers? This doesn't make any sense to me, unless MS will soon start spamming everyone on the planet to buy XP, Office 2k3, and all 12 million unsold copies of MS Bob. On the plus side, that would make MS more hated by the general public ;)
Re:Where is the logic? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft want to be able to reduce their costs from being spammed but still want to benefit from eing able to send bulk email to their subscriber base.
Not just M$, but all ISPs... (Score:2)
What does this mean? Well, hotmail will still be a cesspool of forged/autogen'd spams (as will AOL, etc), since the ISPs cannot be held liable. What interests me is that the other ISPs weren't mentioned.
Ultimately, there is the annoying problem of your service provider issuing you spam and selling your personal information... but that seems like another can of worms.
Just like them.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like anyone who charges $$$ for software, but ducks responsibility when it has flaws, risks, and other defects. This activity only helps their cause by letting them cover their asses if they can't do it.
Odd? Ha! (Score:3, Interesting)
Odd that Microsoft is simultaneously trying to stop spam sent to Hotmail users, and to make sure that it can send unsolicited commercial email without penalties.
Odd? Hardly. Microsoft feels it is above the standard of most Good Corporate Citizens because they have a monopoly. Remember when MS' updater said no info would be sent back to MS? Well just have a look at what XP is sending back to MS [tecchannel.de] for an example of their power-crazed mindset.
Re:Odd? Ha! (Score:2, Insightful)
This (parent) post is SPAM and nothing more! I hope I get to meta-mod this! Moderators... please read the articles, read the posts, and READ THE LINKS! (well, unless the link is to that horrid goatsx site!)
Recently I have received (Score:2)
None of which I have asked for.
The XP ones were interesting because they did not appear to come from Microsoft and they had no call to action such as an 800 number or website.
Maybe these are related?
Wierd.
No holes here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No holes here (Score:2)
Then again, perhaps that makes too much sense!
Spam is ineffective. (Score:4, Interesting)
I swear, if the Internet didn't boom so quickly, banner ads might still have been looked upon as a viable outlet for advertising. I mean really, what makes banner ads so much worse than radio ads? I ignore radio and TV ads just as easily by changing the channel. The only advertising worth a damn was the small posters on the railroad. I'll be damnned if each and every one of those ads weren't burned into my memory from staring at them during my hour commute each way, 5 days a week.
Re:Spam is ineffective. (Score:2)
Pure hypocrisy.
LS
Re:Spam is ineffective. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Spam is ineffective. (Score:2)
I don't know... Maybe they think TV commercials are worth it.
Simple, the radio doesn't say, "you have 5 seconds to click this button and buy what we tell you to buy".
What the internet gave people is the truth. They can now see that an ad does not inspire people to instantly want to buy what they have to offer.
If you see a banner ad for Penguin Computing, odds are that you wont click on it. Then, a month later when your company is making purchasing decisions, you might recomend Penguin, and in turn their $15 ad just earned them thousands. The problem is that you didn't click on the ad, so the money that ad earned them doesn't show up in a database, and the ad is considered to be worthless.
What I would like to see is more ads from companies smart enough to know what "brand recognition" means, such as Coke, etc. They could make a non-annoying, non-animated banner than says "Drink Coke", and even though few would click it, it would gradually show an increase in sales.
It's the fault of the websites as well. Slashdot should go to the sponsors and tell them, "There are XYZ unique visitors everyday, and we want this ammount to stick your banner up there for 2 days. If people don't click through, tough."
Different Arms of MS (Score:2)
afai remember Hotmail is based out of CA, and I'm not sure where MSN is.
Why is that odd? (Score:3, Insightful)
How is that kind of obvious scheme odd, except in that it is allowed to exist in the first place...
Remember, investing in MS is risking having your own money used against you in the marketplace.
Where do you want to bend over today? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because someone has done business with a company doesn't mean that they want gobs of mail that they didn't ask for. Transactions don't entitle a company to move into a person's life.
Say it with me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, say it to the reps in Washington State before they let Microsoft out of the cage to devour all of us.
Anyone got the emails for these people?
Re:Say it with me. (Score:2)
Commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
Bull Shit [gigalaw.com]
good one! (Score:2)
Mod parent +5 funny.
I WAIT YOUR URGENT REPLY (Score:2, Funny)
DR GODWIN ADAMS.
NIGERIA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (NNPC)
20B IKOYI CRESCENT, LAGOS NIGERIA.
E-mail godwinadams@hotmail.com
TEL-FAX- 234 -01- 7744315
RE:URGENT & CONFIDNTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL...
Microsoft plan (Score:2)
Microsoft doesn't want fully effective anti-spam laws. If they successfully sue spammers attacking them, and make hotmail fairly spam free, with a law where only Microsoft big enough to do something about it, then they have a monopoly on anti-spam email.
I bet they don't even know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ted
"Microsoft Brand Penis enlargers anyone?" (Score:2, Funny)
bcentral? (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong. I tried to find the truth but got lost in the process.
uh (Score:2, Funny)
The biggest problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention the whole "previous business relationship" is total BS. Companies swap email address lists and call each other 'partners'. It's a bunch of crap. I think they ought to rase the fee to $5000. Make it worth someone's time to sue.
Re:The biggest problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is much like in corrupt countries (Score:2, Insightful)
Reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's my take:
The "done business" change is iffy. The justification is probably that it allows a company who sold a defective product to contact their customers with information on a security patch, or whatever. I can see how Microsoft would feel that such communications would be absolutely necessary for their business.
However, it also allows every FlyByNight company I ever ordered RAM from to send me spam without repercussions.
I don't like the broad opening, but I think some exemption should be allowed for messages that concern failings in a product that I've already purchased.
The ISP change is less iffy. I don't get much spam directly from ISPs. All it needs is a clause that specifies that the ISP can only send messages that directly concern the details of their customer's current account. So, sending a warning about a violation of the terms of use should be fine. Advertisements about additional services such as domain name registration should contain the ADV: tag.
So, that's my opinion. The changes Microsoft is lobbying for are bad, but they could be motivated by reasonable goals. I hope Washington State lawmakers can find a way to address the goals without providing such gaping holes in the spam laws.
Re:Reasonable (Score:2)
No exemption needed, that isn't an advertizement.
All it needs is a clause that specifies that the ISP can only send messages that directly concern the details of their customer's current account.
Again, no execption needed. Tat isn't an advertizement either.
I'll admit I haven't studied the text of the law or the text of the proposed change, but as far as I can tell Microsoft's proposed changes are purely self-serving crap.
-
Re:Reasonable (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but it's unsolicited communication. The bill addresses unsolicited communication, not advertisements. The same applies to the second point as well.
In other news . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory.. (Score:3, Funny)
2) Spam all customers.
3) ???
4) Profit!
What I find funny (Score:2)
Then you have AOL, who advertises their ability to SORT e-mails, wow! That must be a great feature, I hope AOL hasn't patented it yet, so that my ISP (or rather my mail program) may one day implement it.
I'm fixating on small details, but it shows you the perspective of these companies. They think their users are total idiots (which they may well be, but at least patronize them a little).
This is great!!! (Score:2)
I am not surprised... (Score:2)
Odd? No. Business. (Score:2)
Odd that Microsoft is simultaneously trying to stop spam sent to Hotmail users, and to make sure that it can send unsolicited commercial email without penalties.
Right. About as odd as a football player who is simultaneously trying to stop the other team from scoring a touchdown, and to make sure that his team can score a touchdown without penalties.
ISP Exemption (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how their ISP exemption is worded. If I, as Joe Spammer, buy at T1 from a provider (say UUNet), and spam off it 24/7, but I also have one hosting customer on the line, then I am an ISP. Am I at this point exempt by their law?
Little mis-wordings leave big loopholes. Most of the spammers that I've talked to buy fairly big lines (T3's, 100Mb/s dedicated, etc, etc), and usually have at least one box hosted with them for whatever reason. Not by design, usually as favors to friends, but they're still providing an Internet Service (ISP = Internet Service Provider).
The company I work for, we buy huge amounts of bandwidth, and for the most part host ourselves.. Does that qualify us to send spam? We don't, and know our customers don't like it, and our provider wouldn't allow it (I've talked to our providers abuse guy several times on other issues, but I already know he's hard against), so we never will, but by that new law we should use our new-found ability.
I wonder if the market for toner cartridges and hair growth formula are really that good.
I can see some of the reasoning, but a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
For this I could see the "prior relationship" reasoning - much like the current telemarketting stuff.
However, the ISP part doesn't make much sense, unless they wanna be able to send tons of junk mail to their MSN subscribers about other MS junk.
Either way - a) how hard would it be for a spammer to forge a database showing how recipient a had clicked on a web site and signed up b) act as an ISP (yeah...we have 2 subscribers, but we're an ISP) and spam away.
Then again, I'm one of those old folk who remember the Internet before business took hold
Not the first, but far worse... (Score:2, Interesting)
I've encountered the same situation with Earthlink. Because I use a DDNS service (whyi.org), because they cannot do a reverse lookup (the reverse zone belongs to my ISP), they bounce my messages as spam. At the same time, I was getting voluminous amounts of spam from their users.
However, trying to steer the lawmaking apparatus, no doubt with bribe^H^H^H^H charitable donations to our elected officials is very very low...
BillBlocker! (Score:5, Informative)
For those who want to do similarly, and who run their own mail servers, let me save you a little research.
If you run qmail or a similar package with rblsmtpd, make the following entry in the
207.46.:allow,RBLSMTPD="Microsoft: Access denied." (Or whatever text you want in there).
There are other domains. You may want to add:
207.68.128-207.:allow,RBLSMTPD=(Text as above).
65.52-55.:
213.199.144-159.:
For those using postfix, simply add these to your client_check and sender_check lists, and recompile with postmap.
microsoft.com 554 Go away, Bill. (or whatever you want to say).
msft.net 554 (whatever you want to say)
msn.com (if desired)
Nothing odd at all... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a matter of control without responsibility. The measures that the article mentions are as draconian as spam is loathsome. The measure provides a penalty of a thousand dollars per message sent and it is bound to bankrupt anyone caught doing it; essentially providing the equivalent of a class-suit in a can.
This is a very effective measure against spam as written, but even a penalty as severe as the one mentioned would be only an inconvenience to Microsoft which would be made to pay for their taste for expansion with real risks under a law that provided effective penalties against spam.
Once more, the topic is control without responsibility and there is nothing surprising about Microsoft, a company that writes Petri dishes into its software and doesn't take them out after years of exploits, wanting special exemptions for the next time they are fooled, hacked, or get a wild-hair that makes them do what back-alley creeps resort to.
Hotmail spam filtering (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft does an ok job at Hotmail, but there is one thing that it misses - itself.
My mail is set to exclusive on Hotmail, meaning if you are not on my safe list, your mail gets dumped into my Junk Mail folder. Seven day old messages get erased from Junk Mail permanently. This applies to all emailers, except Microsoft, whose 75KB Hotmail ads trying to promote paying for more services show up in my Inbox, not Junk Mail. I have to manually delete these.
Two things I want changed at Hotmail:
1. Microsoft better learn how to filter itself. Properly.
2. Junk Mail should not contribute to my space usage on Hotmail. If I get a lot of spam, Hotmail sends me a message saying to erase it, flooding it further. God forbid I fet another ad. When you have 2MB of space, and Junk Mail counts towards it, 50KB hurts. It wouldn't hurt to make the initial page after logging in say in big red letters "Erase some mail, dammit!"
Quantum Skyline
"previous business relationship" - bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to be a common belief that it is okay to send anything you want to anyone you have a prior business relationship with. Fuck that. If I buy stuff off someone, it does not mean that I want them to pester the hell out of me so I can buy more stuff.
competetion (Score:3, Interesting)
here's the senario:
spammer wants to send mail to all hotmail or msn (or both) users. spammer gives microsoft money, and then is able to send them "legal" spam. the spam doesn't stop, microsoft just gets richer in the process, and probably pays off a few politicians.
vote the bastards out.
Scott Hazlegrove some background (Score:5, Informative)
Scott Hazlegrove is the Microsoft lobbyist they are talking about.
Here is Scott Hazlegrove, "environmental policy director with the Association of Washington Business" arguing against stepped penalties for river poluters, instead he wants a nice flat fee (which would favour the bigger poluters over the little ones).
http://www.crcwater.org/fish/npfish35.html [crcwater.org]
Here he is as a Surefoot customer:
"I am writing to express my thanks and appreciation for the first decently fitting ski boots I have ever worn.", "I wouldn't think of buying a pair of boots anywhere else."http://www.surefoot.com/surefoot_-_customer_letter s.html [surefoot.com]
Here he is at his lobbying firm (this page has disappeared from the site, but google still has it):
The google cache link [216.239.39.100]
Live on CSPAN (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft: Chairman, I will yield my time to the Senator from ADM.
ADM: I yield my time to the Senator from Allstate.
Allstate: Thank you Chairman, Microsoft, ADM, Allstate. We are here representing the people of America.
Senate: Hear, hear!
Allstate: We must lower taxes on corporations to help the American people!
Senate: Profit!
Re:Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
If you were a spammer and you knew you were going to be in the proverbial sights of either the government or Microsoft which one do you think you would stand a better chance with? Microsoft would eat you alive and could do so in ways the government couldn't even approach (though it apparently isn't above looking the other way when they do it)
If they controlled as high a percentage of spam market as they do PC operating systems then it would be simple enough once they got their monopoly in place to crush 90+% of the spam by taking out one player. Actually getting them once they have it would be tough I admit but at least you would know exactly where to look.
Re:Odd? (Score:2)
There is nothing inherently wrong with such a position. To say that someone is wrong for saying so is illogical. It's called a tu quoque argument. Example:
Father: Son, don't smoke. It is a filthy habit and will kill you lights cigarette
Son: But you smoke! Why shouldn't I smoke? You are a hypocrite.
BONG! Wrong. While it may be necessary to point out the hypocrisy of the father's statement, the son's "And You Too!" reponse is not sufficient to outweigh the father's sound advice against smoking. The father could be addicted or could be speaking from experience. He may have a lung disease or have trouble with social situations because of the stigma against smoking.
I guess the point it: Microsoft can do what it is doing and still remain consistent as long as it offers sufficient evidence to do so. Personally, I doubt they will on a more global front, but if they build "own" spamming into their EULA, what to do?