Balmer Vows to Kill Google 766
An anonymous reader writes "Probably due to the Microsoft suit against Google over human resources, some very heated exchanges have turned up in some court documents. Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer has apparently
vowed to kill Internet search leader Google, according to documents filed in the increasingly bitter battle between the rivals." From the article: "At some point in the conversation, Mr. Ballmer said: 'Just tell me it's not Google,'' Lucovosky said in his statement. Lucovosky replied that he was joining Google. 'At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office,' Lucovosky recounted, adding that Ballmer then launched into a tirade about Google CEO Eric Schmidt. 'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.' Schmidt previously worked for Sun Microsystems and was the CEO of Novell."
Are you allowed to post that (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Are you allowed to post that (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Are you allowed to post that (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously this isn't the case, is it?
Satire is quite protected by the law as part of freedom of speech.
Re:Are you allowed to post that (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Are you allowed to post that (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, whether that's a protection agains libel or slander, I don't know, but from what I read the other day, it's usually not considered either if you reasonably believe what you say is true.
Re:Are you allowed to post that (Score:4, Insightful)
If I say "The moon is made of cheese" and you say "I've just heard from Lifewish: the moon is made of cheese", then your statement is a lie (the moon is not made of cheese) but is an accurate representation of what I said.
I suppose I shouldn't expect much from a guy who admits he's an idiot on his own website, but really.
Hey, I figure that if I get it out in the open now it'll save time later...
Re:Are you allowed to post that (Score:5, Informative)
Clarification (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Clarification (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Are you allowed to post that (Score:5, Funny)
we have hundreds of thousands of socially mal-adjusted virgins at our fingertips i say we pool respources and attack microsft this weekend unless they have a whole bunch of females stockpiled at the microsft campus nothing can stop us!
Re:Are you allowed to post that (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Are you allowed to post that (Score:3, Insightful)
Go to "www.microsoft.com" in my browser and turn up my computer's volume?
Re:Are you allowed to post that (Score:5, Insightful)
Hope this helps.
Re:Are you allowed to post that (Score:3, Funny)
monkeyboy needs thorazine (Score:3, Insightful)
what an immature neanderthal...
Re:monkeyboy needs thorazine (Score:5, Insightful)
> That's more than you can say about a lot of
>executives. What's wrong with wanting to crush
>the competition?
Uhh, being passionate is a relative thing.
Being passionate about creating new art is
a good thing. Being passionate about being
a serial killer is a bad thing.
Being passionate as a thug I would argue
is not a good thing. Please keep in mind
that the goal of a businessman is to do
business, not to throw chairs around
a room, nor to threaten an individual
with bodily harm. That kind of behavior
is simply childish and unprofessional.
A professional would have looked at the
situation and thought how to improve his
business. Ballmer did neither.
--Johnny
P.s. Tell Monkeyboy keep up the good
work and show us what good leadership
is all about.
Re:monkeyboy needs thorazine (Score:5, Funny)
True. I believe a whole chapter of The Wealth of Nations was devoted to the importance of chair throwing.
Re:monkeyboy needs thorazine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:monkeyboy needs thorazine (Score:5, Insightful)
And no, I don't think you understand what capitalism is truly about. In pretty much all marketplaces there is room for more than one supplier of goods and services. Certainly that is the case with operating systems and office suites. And no reasonable person would have a problem with a corporation "crushing" its competition by providing a quality product, since it would be the consumer's choice to, in effect, grant a near-monopoly to that company. And when the value of that monopoly's product falls off and someone else becomes top dog for a while
Really, that view of the business world is fundamentally incompatible with Gates & Ballmer's. Their idea of successful competition is the wholly-unenlightened approach of ruthlessly suppressing or eliminating anything that is or might become a threat to Microsoft's hegemony. That's the history of that company, much of which was brought out during the antitrust trial (read up on the "Microsoft tax" and some of the interesting contracts Microsoft forced on the big hardware makers to keep competing OSes out of the picture.)
Actually, I would have to say that Microsoft's way of doing "business" is really more in line with Chinese or even Japanese methodologies than those of traditional American or European businesses. I was watching a TLC program (I think it was TLC) that showed a business strategy meeting from some unnamed large Japanese manufacturer. It was run along near-military lines, and was full of terms like "englobement", "encirclement", "cutting supply lines" and "choking off their air." I found it very interesting, since it was all aimed at removing some competitor from existence (they didn't say who.) I'd like to be a fly on the wall at some of Gates' strategy meetings. I suspect he learned a thing or two from the Japanese.
The Nature of True Capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, what Ballmer is doing is true capitalism; it's just the extreme of it. Capitalism is great, but this is exactly what it turns into when allowed to go unchecked. That is why we have governmental controls. Too much government = communism; too little = ruthless Capitalism (e.g. Ballmer).
While I agree that Ballmer's strategy is maniacal and disgusting, you can't reproach him by saying that he isn't true to Capitalism, as though Capitalism is this machine turning out benevolence and fairness.
This is akin to saying that all we need is true Democracy. Democracy is great too, but pure Democracy is pure majority-rule and no protection of minorities. If 51% wanted to ostracize blacks, then, hey, that's democracy. Fortunately, we don't live in a pure democracy. We have very undemocratic institutions such as the Constitution and the Courts.
Thus, you can't condemn Ballmer as though he's not following "true" Capitalism. He is; that's the problem.
Re:The Nature of True Capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
As for true democracy. True democracy would mean that minorities would be separate governments, and that a change in viewpoints would place the individual under new laws and a new authority.
The Problem is Who Defines Capitalism (Score:4, Interesting)
Big Buisness Capitalism has historically been the foundation of Social Darwinism.
We as a country made a very conscious decision in the middle part of the 19th century to move away from Big Buisness Capitalism and use the government to protect the marketplace. This eventually led to very large social and economic changes occuring in the early part of the 20th century. The idea that the Free Market is something to be protected is something that has been further advanced by fears that we could see a sort of fascism by Big Business.
Now, to tie this in with the writings of Karl Marx. Marx was writing at the time of the Industrial Revolution and Das Kapital largely discusses the nature of Bug Business Capitalism. Marx rightly pointed out that this form of Capitalism was unsustainable in any real way and resulted in a large number of social ills (he saw it as better than the Feudal economic systems it replaced however). Marx therefore concluded that as this form of capitalism collapsed under its own weight, that it would be replaced by a system where the workers ran and owned the means of production. In general, this has not happened. However, Marx was right in that this form of capitalism did fall in the developed world. What has increasingly replaced it, however, is not Marxian socialism but *free market* capitalism. I am actually genuinely surprised that Marx did not see the rise of antitrust laws, for example, as the foundation of what would replace or modify the forms of Capitalism he was writing about.
While Free Market Capitalism does "socialize" one of the important aspects of the "means of production" it does not do so by declaring factories, energy infrastructure, etc. as common goods but rather by focusing on a more abstract concept of the "marketplace" as a common good and something to be protected by the government. This is why we have antitrust laws.
What Microsoft is doing is fundamentally at odds with capitalism as it is established here in the US. They have on their record a court finding that they violated antitrust law. I.e. they are a convicted monopolist (yes, they were conviceted in a civil case, but there are plenty of court documents which uphold the concept of a conviction in a civil case).
Another interesting angle of this case might be if counterclaims are filed as a result alleging that Microsoft is abusing its monopoly to hurt Google (MSN search is the default search engine in IE). IANAL, but I believe that the principle of collateral estoppel might put Microsoft in a bad position here. Maybe even bad enough to cause them to drop the suit in exchange for the counterclaims to be dropped.
Re:The Problem is Who Defines Capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
That is actually a very interesting point. I hope someone mods you up.
However, most of these businesses currently are mostly owned by non-employees, so the employees don't usually have that much of a say over who the directors are except as employees. I don't say it is not a step i
Re:monkeyboy needs thorazine (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:monkeyboy needs thorazine (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism is about healthy competition that follows rules. When coorporations compete on common ground it drives prices down and quality up and fosters innovation. I have never ever read about how capitalism is supposed to foster killing competitors with legal tactics, bribes and by using illegal or shoddy business deals. You probably mistake capitalism for anarchy.
Re:monkeyboy needs thorazine (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why Capitalism must be controlled. (Score:5, Insightful)
Being pro-Business means that you pass laws designed to protect the revenue streams of businesses (copyright extensions, DMCA, patents on "business methods", etc).
Being pro-Market means that you pass laws designed to facilitate competition in a market and curb the excesses of existing companies.
Re:monkeyboy needs thorazine (Score:5, Insightful)
Regarding "cheap 3rd world labour and large scale downsizing", these are choices of efficency implicitly promoted by capitalism. If the I can get the same labor so cheap it offsets the costs of additionaly shipping, it is in my benefit and it is in the benefit of those who can prvide teh labor. Remember, compared to many other jobs in these places they are well paying. Again, only intelligent consumers can influence the market to encourage the market to maintain good working conditions in these places. The same go for local jobs: if I care about how companies treat their employees and want to ensure fair treatment and benefits (e.g., avoid large scale downsizing), I have to support/purchase fromonly those companies that meet my values.
Anm
Re:monkeyboy needs thorazine (Score:4, Insightful)
But how do you go about determining what should be allowed by authorities, if you have zero framework for reference other than "greed is good"? (and dandy).
You see, there are reasons, which I won't repeat here, why really big companies with monopoly powers can't "abuse" those powers. Under "greed is good"/AynRand-esque theories a company can never abuse its position in any way, because if it works out good for the company, it's good, if it works out bad for the company, it's good for other people (no matter who gets killed in the process) - there is no referential framework of things like "the greater good".
Re:monkeyboy needs thorazine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:monkeyboy needs thorazine (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunatly, what the people in charge of big corporations say and do isnt scrutinised as much by the press as much as they should be considering the political power they posess
That's because the CEO's and the like aren't elected like political leaders, but are rather assigned. If you look at it objectively, a company's structure is far more similar to a dictatorship than a democracy ( which is a good thing ), which probably allows the people in charge of those companies to have more freedom in what they say and what they do without being criticized.
Just my $0.02...
Re:monkeyboy needs thorazine (Score:3, Interesting)
It is nice to know. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It is nice to know. (Score:5, Funny)
I know he works for the Borg and all, but I think you meant "collected".
Re:It is nice to know. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Software quality!=business acumen (Score:3)
He road the wave, he didn't create it.
The big one was forged on the sea foam souls of broken hearts and misplaced hand shakes. A plankton of tears washes about in what is the big kahuna of business.
No, Mr. Balmer need not be a shrewd business man, but rather simply he must only know how to stay afloat.
Typographical Obscensity (Score:5, Funny)
Or maybe "f***ing" is the poster's way of representing Ballmer's dribbling, shouting, flobbing, ranting, malsonorous splange of words laughingly called his voice.
Nice man.
Re:Typographical Obscensity (Score:4, Interesting)
On top of all that, his city, state, and federal governments are all hoping to find a way to grab his $46 billion either through lawsuits, taxes, or confiscation. That's the way of things. When you're successful, everyone else tries to tear you down.
I heard plenty of stories of such behavior when I was at Fidelity Investments. These upper level analysts who were getting high six figure salaries would scream and throw their phones against the wall when things didn't go their way. The pressure was really getting to them.
I'm not defending all of Microsoft's actions but you've got to feel for the guy when he's caught on tape/web/whatever acting like an ordinary, flawed human being with emotions. Frankly I'm rather relieved to hear that Ballmer is not some kind of icy monster. Heh. I wonder how many Aeron chairs he goes through in a month!
Re:Typographical Obscensity (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked for one of these guys, I'd rather the icy monster any day.
This kind of explosion reeks of a fellow who feels indestructable in his current position. Breaking out in a violent, destructive rage in the office is not normal, even for these guys.
Just think of his assistant who has to go in afterwards, brief him about his next meetings then contact facilities to send somebody to fix the wall and replace the chair.
I feel for them, not the multimilliondollar exec throwing a tantrum like a four year old.
Besides, a tantrum like that would really make me glad I'm leaving.
Re:Typographical Obscensity (Score:4, Insightful)
To understand more about CEO's rent "Gorillas in the Mist" and pay close attention to the silverback male.
Re:Typographical Obscensity (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody forces him to do this job. He sure got enough cash to live comfortably several life times on it.
But that's not what this is about. It is dominating others, succeeding with manipulation and violence - compulsively, for decades. Does he have a choice? Probably not - regrettably.
Throwing chairs and tantrums is abusive behavior. You seem to tolerate this kind of behavior as "human". I think, it's not yet quite human.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Steve Jobs was right (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Steve Jobs was right (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, please. Check with people at Apple or Pixar and ask if Jobs has ever had a maximum-flake-factor freaky tirade in their own personal cubicle before. Don't let the sandals fool you. He's no paragon of zen-like level headedness when confronted with contrary news, uppity employees, or a marketplace that doesn't always see things his way.
Re:Steve Jobs was right (Score:3, Funny)
Steve Ballmer Soprano (Score:4, Interesting)
I kind of half imagine him like Scarface at the end of the Pacino movie.
Re:Steve Ballmer Soprano (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly. This is the sort of crap that you expect from the overly indulged geek who becomes CEO or from the jock CEO. Look, anytime somebody exhibits this sort of behavior, there is something fundamentally wrong with their character. I've had a boss in the past that pulled this kind of crap on me and I simply told him that it would not be acceptable behavior and I would not tolerate it. I then walked out of the room treating him like the child he was. The guy leaving for Google made the right decision.
Re:Steve Ballmer Soprano (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps. I think everyone has a potential for these kinds of displays of anger. And some people are simply more prone to emotional displays than others.
If this Ballmer anecdote is true, it is very interesting and possibly enlightening. Anger and fear are both responses to threats -- the difference is that you feel fear when there is no clear action to take, anger is for when you have something specific that you can do. They often alternate toge
Re:Steve Ballmer Soprano (Score:5, Insightful)
Have some more respect for yourself. If you cannot deal with people without resorting to childish antics then I simply don't want to work with you. I try and surround myself with employees and students who are capable of mature communication, who are smarter than me, and who have strong work ethics. That is the way you create great stuff that has class and does what it was designed to do.
Re:Steve Ballmer Soprano (Score:4, Funny)
Pretty well.
Did the boss immediately sign up for anger managment classes?
No. He tried to yell at me for walking out on him, to which I simply turned around and said "Daryl, fsck you".
Did you get a raise for being so mature?
No, I left and started my own company. Turned around, sold it, bought a house and went back to school.
Did the boss apologize and promise never to do it again?
No. Daryl was/is an asshole and is irredeemable. And since this is a response to an anonymous coward, if this is you Daryl, you still have it, don't you?
Did you suddenly become more sexually attractive to your coworkers?
Excuse me? Where did this come from? Maybe it is you Daryl, as that is just the sort of thing that you would say.
Did you get ignored?
Quite the contrary. I left and took half the company with me.
Did your career stop advancing at that job?
Yeah. I ate their lunch.
Did you get branded a scapegoat?
Hardly.
Did you get reassigned to something nasty?
If making more money is nasty, then sure.
Did you get fired?
See above.
Look, the point is that life is too short to allow yourself to be abused. By anyone. Although, people set their own priorities and if making the lease payment on your Mercedes is more important to you than standing up for yourself or others, then that is your choice. Just don't expect me to want to work with you.
Re:Steve Ballmer Soprano (Score:3, Interesting)
This is serious stuff. He basically made a death threat to the Google CEO.
Balmer sometimes acts like a cocaine addict. Snappy, choleric, over-hyped ("developers developers developers!").
He's certainly not a role model of mine.
Gates might have been an evil corporate henchman, but at least he didn't have this d
Re:Steve Ballmer Soprano (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at these two guys
Balmer [suzansworld.com]
Khrushchev [jfk.org]
He's always kind of reminded me of Khrushchev, but threatening to bury Google.... it's just a little to Warsaw pact, even for my tastes.
Re:Steve Ballmer Soprano (Score:5, Funny)
"Say hello to muh lil' chair!"
Bury? (Score:5, Funny)
For those that weren't born then... (Score:5, Informative)
Reminds me of that recent article about testing CEO's for being a sociopath.
/. readers begin to softly chant .. (Score:5, Funny)
two men enter, one man leaves
TWO MEN ENTER, ONE MAN LEAVES!
Steve Ballmer has Issues (Score:5, Funny)
And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re:Steve Ballmer has Issues (Score:5, Informative)
Quote taken completely out of context... (Score:5, Funny)
Balmer: 'I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google.'
BillG: YEAH!
Balmer: Then I'm going to take this frikkin chair, smash his face with it, and lick the blood off the ring.
BillG: Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! Watcha gonna dooooo....
Balmer: BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M REALLY PUMPED UP ABOUT!?!?!
BillG: Oooooh Yeah!
Balmer: I just saved a boatload of money by switching to Geico.
(Running on excercise machine)
BillG: You can dooo it!!!
the price of vengeance (Score:5, Funny)
Assuming that the chair-throwing and the mindset it implies are true... whose stock do you buy or sell?
Google?... Microsoft?... (OfficeMax?)
Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
That monkey dancer never cease to amaze me.
Why kill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why kill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ballmer has often displayed that attitude.
Re:Why kill? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm, they've become the world's most profitable company and have an obscene cash surplus by illegally crushing all competition (and have a carte blanche from the President). I can't see any incentive for them to change.
Why not start doing good things for computing for a change?
Because it's detrimental to shareholder value.
MS has b
Re:Why kill? (Score:3)
They don't use open specifications. This hurts interoperability. And don't give me "they have no obligation" crap. Of course they don't, that's why they do it. It doesn't mean it doesn't have a negative effect. When my boss sends me a document, he sends me a word doc. So I'm stuck either using Office or trying my luck with the la
And this is the problem, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft keeps demonstrating, again and again, that they believe no one may have power but them, and keep killing companies to attain that goal. And people just keep pretending this is somehow good for the market, because the idea that market forces could lead to something other than the perfect outcome is just something some people just don't want to admit could happen.
But this is hurting the market, in the most direct way possible: Microsoft's expansion strategy is based not on finding the next big thing, but on stopping it before it starts.
Supposedly the computer industry lives and thrives on small discoveries that grow to the "next big thing". You know, the proverbial cliche of the startup in somebody's garage, a new way of looking at things, an idea that could change the world, yadda yadda yadda. But more and more the fact is-- and most people see this-- if you find that brilliant idea, if you sweat and pour your life and blood and tears into making the new next greatest thing,
What is the point of trying to build, or finance something revolutionary like Skype, if you know that whatever it is (even if it isn't something Microsoft does yet) Success will just result in Microsoft signing a corporate death warrant? The answer is obviously "because you love what you are doing", but what about the people who don't love what they're doing enough to take the risk of so much wasted effort? Are there people who would be going out and doing new and interesting things they aren't doing now in a world where trying to change the face of computing is rewarded rather than punished? What kind of chilling effect is this having?
Re:And this is the problem, isn't it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Go ask Google, Skype, Symantec, Apple, the local Linux guy, all of which benefit immensely from Microsoft not getting it until it's too late.
I used to work for a company that had a mini MS complex: we thought everyone in IT industry services sector or reseller channel was a competition. The result: we fought a war on 900 fronts and could not bring critical resources to bear on our real competitors (other national mega resellers). Eventually, we were spending more money on trying to out-market and out business develop inconsequential competitors and our sales guys were losing sales because we were not able to deliver hardware on time to customers.
Right now, MS is showing signs of what I saw at Inacom:
* Changes and delays with their OS product.
* Development of huge initiatives that business partners want and customers don't want like DRM and trusted computing
* Not adapting to changing business models - open source for example.
* Ability to market, but not deliver - like the MSN search that was going to be more accurate, etc...
* Competing against yourself - AXAPTA, NAVISION, GreatPlains... how many competing and overlapping ERP/CRM packages do you need?
* When was the last time there was a major real change in office, anyway?
* Oh, and ceeding the entire low end of the computer industry to Linspire and linux (when was the last time you saw a new windowsXP computer for $250)?
Re:And this is the problem, isn't it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Jeremy
Re:And this is the problem, isn't it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it's only hurting the American portion of the industry.
Consider the origins of the things that Microsoft is trying to kill. Google is a bit unusual, in that it started in the US. How many other real innovations lately have come from the US?
The "browser war"? Netscape was a commercialization of Mosaic, which was developed in Switzerland. Its descendants, mozilla and firefox, are completely international developments (and are finally starting to solve the "internationalization" problem.) The most notable independently-developed browser is opera, from Norway.
Startup OSs? Linux was started in Finland, and was in part a spinoff of minix, which came from the Netherlands. Linus himself now lives in the US, but linux development is rather evenly distributed around the world. We've recently read here of iTron, developed in Japan, in use as an embedded kernel in billions of devices built around the world, but still nearly unknown in the US. (Why is this?)
Much of Microsoft's clout is restricted to the US. There are serious signals that governments all over are getting very nervous about them, and are starting to take steps to limit their power. In the US, Microsoft was one of the biggest contributors to George Bush's two campaigns, which bought them the effective dismissal of the Justice Dept's attempt to reign them in, and an "agreement" that effectively indemnifies them against further charges in US courts.
As a result, they are effectively free to take any actions, legal or not, against US competitors. But they are having little success at reigning in new developments outside the US.
Google should just slowly shift their operation to a non-US base, preferably a widely-distributed one not under the control of any one government, as many big corporations are doing. And the rest of the US computer industry should continue moving its R&D to other countries, beyond the reach of Microsoft.
American computer geeks might seriously consider learning a couple of languages other than English. (No, I don't mean Java or Ruby.
Re:And this is the problem, isn't it? (Score:3)
Can you please provide your source for this?
It's their past... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, someone will at some point as everything is impermanent and all power ends some day. Before that, how
It Goes Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
You know Schmidy is just harboring some serious grudge against MS right now. If Balmer thinks he's the only one with the motivation to compete, he doesn't know what it's like to be driven vengenance. Schmidt is like the underdog who've been kicked around and have finally made his break. We all know how those stories end.
Da da da da dum Inspector Google da da da dum dum (Score:5, Funny)
I'LL GET YOU NEXT TIME GOOGLE! NEXT TIME!!!
Its shows they KEEP THE EMAILS (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to rethink owning MSFT stock? (Score:5, Insightful)
While we all think it funny, it offers insight into the emotional response of the CEO of the world's largest software company. It shows his a weakness, that he is personally threatened by Google, and a despiration, that he feels Google just one upped him. There is a difference between being passionate about your products and being threatened by your market mates.
Is this the type of personality you would want running the company your 401(k) was invested in? Your retirement future, child's education, or second house at the lake, all riding on the ability of a short tempered reactionist who would scream and shout and create a personal vendetta not only aginst a competitor, but CEO-to-CEO?
In many cases the CEO is a significant reason to invest in a company - that's why there are such massive stock sell offs or buy ins when leadership changes (look at HP recently as an example or further back to Chrysler, GM, etc).
I'd rather invest in a company who's CEO is headstrong and confident enough to try to innovate their competition our of existance, not temper tantrem their CEO to death.
Patent Infringement (Score:5, Funny)
In the year 2010 (Score:5, Funny)
Balmer: I've done far worse than kill you, Google. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her: marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet, buried alive. Buried alive.
Google: BAAAAALLLLLMER!!!!!!
Antitrust issues (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Antitrust issues (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Antitrust issues (Score:3, Insightful)
"From the Article" (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not see that line anywhere in the article.
Re:"From the Article" (Score:5, Informative)
Balmer talks about Eric Schmidt (Score:5, Informative)
http://battellemedia.com/archives/001835.php [battellemedia.com]
At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: "Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google."
I have met Mark Lucovosky.... (Score:5, Informative)
Why exactly does Ballmer care? (Score:5, Interesting)
You hear about Ballmer flippin out, throwing chairs because he lost someone to Google, but what does he care? How OLD is he?
I'll guess... early 50's, and looking at him, he's not exactly in great shape and probably has a shitload of stress to deal with, which means he'll be dead in 20 years.
Why not just fucking retire? You're worth billions... so what personal feeling of satisfaction is to be had by conquering google? Even if you don't conquer google, you'll still be filthy fucking rich.
What's the point? It's not like they offer quality products..
Re:Why exactly does Ballmer care? (Score:3, Funny)
Physical age or intellectual age?
Re:Why exactly does Ballmer care? (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought about a similar question once: with Gates's resources, he could do some seriously interesting stuff. If he wanted to retire, he could probably build his retirement home on freakin' Mars.
The answer I arrived at was that the fact that someone with the drive and passion to do something like that wouldn't be sufficiently-committed to his "day job" (running Microsoft, in this case) to achieve the requisit
Re:Why exactly does Ballmer care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why exactly does Ballmer care? (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't want to just control anything computer-related.
They want to control the PEOPLE that are computer-related. Every user, every developer. And then use that to proclaim themselves better than EVERYONE else.
THAT's the bottom line of primate behavior - every human HAS to be better than everyone else (in their own mind), or they get panic-stricken from the fear of death.
The Gnostics knew this two thousand years ago. They said that there was a need in humans that could not be satisfied by family, work, s
that about sums up the company (Score:5, Insightful)
What else do you need to know about Microsoft? The company is run by an ill-tempered bald ex-football player who's in it for the sport and kill, nothing else. Ballmer deals in concepts like "team spirit", "take no prisoners", and "offense/defense", not bits, bytes, and software.
Ballmer is also overestimating his own business acumen. Ballmer didn't "bury" Novell or Sun; to the degree that Novell and Sun have problems, they are self-inflicted or due to changing market conditions. I can't think of much Ballmer has done as a businessman that was particularly clever; most of what he has been responsible has been shady or outright illegal bullying of other companies. Shady deals he really is good at.
Sadly, there are some good engineers and technologists at Microsoft, but they are just pawns in Ballmer's grand game and strategy. Well, fortunately, they seem to be leaving for greener pastures. Which brings us back to Ballmer's chair throwing...
Re:Is anger an emergent property of Satan? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is anger an emergent property of Satan? (Score:3, Funny)
It just looks a little odd [smh.com.au] because someone edited out the lightbulbs [spookshows.com]he was holding in each hand.
Re:They're just people. (Score:3, Insightful)
I take it you didn't see the video then? (Score:5, Informative)
I'll take it you've never watched the Steve Balmer "Developers, developers, developers" video then? (aka Monkey Dance)
Well if you missed it: have a look here [tarmo.fi]
Chomsky's wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Chomsky's wrong... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:not if google gets them first.` (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, who cares, at least we are getting articles, but then I guess people have to bitch about someone since Michael's been gone.
Back to the topic... Whether these allegations are true or not, it's pretty obvious that Microsoft as a whole is beginning to thrash. They used to point at an industry or niche and say, "We're going in" and owned it withing a year.
But lately their h
Re:Put aside the Microsoft bashing for a second... (Score:5, Informative)
So? Important executives leave companies all the time.
The article doesn't say that. It says Microsoft alleges Fu-Lee sent Microsoft documents. Regardless, there is no statement in the article and no evidence I've seen in any articles about this squabble the Fu-Lee "worked" for Google secretly or otherwise while still at Microsoft. How crazy would that be aside from the already present risk of a non-compete clause in his existing Microsoft agreement?
Again, two alleged violations occurred. As for non-compete clauses, there is high suspicion in the industry and in the courts these types of agreements are even legal.
Getting the preliminary injunction in cases like this is pretty standard procedure. No judge is going to allow a potential violation of a contract (or crime) be committed is it can be checked first. This is not unusual. I don't know what the final result will be here, but I'm guessing Fu-Lee will prevail.
Re:Call the FBI (Score:5, Insightful)