Ballmer Defends Microsoft In China 162
An anonymous reader writes "Mr. Ballmer has recently posted on the official Microsoft blog discussing future business in China and defending Microsoft's stance of cooperating with the government even as other large IT companies have begun making public condemnations (Google and Twitter being the most prominent). Couple this with Bill Gate's speech on China's censorship being not all that bad (a speech very well received by Chinese media) and you've got people wondering: Is Microsoft aiming to take Google's place in China?"
More than likely. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Corporations need to apply by laws, There are laws I don't like in my country, there are laws I don't like in US, and there definitely are laws I don't like in China. But if you want to work in any of these environments, you have to go by laws
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More than likely. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
After all, they're only obeying orders, and so they bear absolutely no personal or corporate responsibility for the consequences of their actions. That's how it works, isn't it? Right?
That's right son, just obey the orders. And get that vagonload of Jews to the gas chambers.
Re:More than likely. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's right son, just obey the orders. And get that vagonload of Jews to the gas chambers.
And what of the wagonmakers? Must they stop making wagons because of how some of their wagons are used? What about the wheelwrights and axlemakers?
At some point along that line, it no longer becomes immoral to remain in business, even if you are aware that some of your products are being used in an utterly despicable manner.
Re:More than likely. (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point along that line, it no longer becomes immoral to remain in business, even if you are aware that some of your products are being used in an utterly despicable manner.
The question is not whether Microsoft should remain in business. It's whether it should do business with a government that will use your products in a repressive manner. A wagonmaker could probably sell his wagons to someone who does not kill its own citizens for their ethnicity and still remain in business. But here is the crux. It won't quite make as much money. And the pure lust for profit is what is objectionable here.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And where do you draw the line? A country (or state) that still has the death penalty for crimes that don't carry the death penalty in your country (or state)? A country that invades other countries and kills their citizens with no legal warrant? With questionable legal warrant? A country that supplies any of the above with funding or equipment? A country in which individuals supply any of the above with funding or equipment? A country in which some groups are seriously repressed but not killed? A company w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just out of interest, if there are problems with MS providing software to such governments, what does the Linux/GNU community do to make sure their tools are not used instead?
I can't speak for the entire community, but personally, I don't modify the system to order for censorship nor do I sell a support contract for that use.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, during the Gaza War [wikipedia.org], Linux Mint developer Clement Lefebvre requested [extremetech.com] that the Israeli government and anyone who support its actions do not use his system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:More than likely. (Score:5, Insightful)
Realistically, if you're making the gas chambers then you have decided your moral position by the business you are in. If you are making the actual tools of killing then there's a case that you have a moral duty to take care over how they will be used. But the further you get from that then the more your moral responsibility is diluted, to the point where it's lost in the noise.
And that's exactly the issue, here. Most people likely wouldn't care if China was somehow using existing Microsoft services to send disinformation and propaganda to their citizens. It's the fact that China is saying, "Please modify your existing software so that it sends disinformation and propaganda to our citizens," and Microsoft is saying, "Ok, sure. What kind of censorship would you like us to make for you?"
Regarding the wagonmakers analogy -- it's upsetting, but not a big deal if Nazis are using a wagonmaker's wagons to transport Jews to a fiery death. That's not the wagonmaker's fault, necessarily. What Microsoft is doing, though, is making a Jew-transporting wagon that is engineered for the purpose of sending Jews to their fiery death.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And where do you draw the line?
This is ever the problem, but how is that an excuse for not drawing it?
Not at all, but it means that you shouldn't think that where you draw it is the only morally valid place to draw it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, here is the crux, they go out of business over time. Because someone else set up a business that sells to both sides, gets better economies of scale, and either lowers the price or just buys the other via higher profits.
Re:More than likely. (Score:5, Insightful)
What about when the order comes in for a wagon specialy designed for the purpose? China demands that they change their product in a way that everyone in the company has to recognize is unethical, but everyone just goes along with it and claims they're just following orders.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At SOME point yeah, but it's probably further down the line than the pawn broker selling to the guy that says "gimmee a gun, I gotta cap some gas jockey's ass!".
It's one thing to sell to someone who may or may not sell to someone who may or may not misuse the product. It's quite another to sell to someone who you know for a fact intends to misuse the product to harm others.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't have to stop making wagons. Just stop cooperating with a dictator in order to sell him more wagons.
However, it always remains immoral to side with a dictatorship to sell
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What corporate responsibility? Because it seems to me there's a lot of talk about corporate responsibility, but when it comes to it, the powers that be don't really care what a corporation does so long as they don't screw the shareholders/government. Otherwise, when a corporation comes into violation with the law (and assuming the defendants can afford to holdout for the duration of the trial), the most they'll get is some nominal fine that sounds big to the average person, but is really no more than a slap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to abide by the law. It's certainly possible not to (individuals and corporations do it all the time), though it would be wise to at least know when you are and aren't operating within the law.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Which of these are you trying to say?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, you could just, like, not go there, you know? It's not like you're being forced to.
The problem here is that not only Mr. and Mrs. Microsoft are going there but they're saying that they're pretty happy with the local laws. So it makes one wonder which is worse:
1. They really believe that, or
2. They don't believe it but they say it anyway just to get even more dirty money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The following question appeared on a political science final exam in college (pertaining to American History):
"If all laws are just, were the Founding Fathers criminals?"
Understand that, and you understand the essential conundrum between respecting local laws and living according to principles. How corporations behave when faced with this says a lot about them and the people who run them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The following question appeared on a political science final exam in college (pertaining to American History):
"If all laws are just, were the Founding Fathers criminals?"
For what it's worth, when answering a conditional question like that you have to take the "if" part to be true even if you don't consider it to be. So the interesting bits of that question are whether the Founding Fathers broke any laws whilst actually under the jurisdiction of those laws, and if all laws are just does that mean that all laws should have universal jurisdiction. I don't know enough American history to answer the first part, but I reckon I could make a strong case for an answer of "No" to the
Re:More than likely. (Score:5, Interesting)
Much to my surprise, he was upset with me. He had VERY strong feelings about this issue, and he insisted China wasn't going to make us do it. That was the same month when China's president visited Microsoft before he visited George Bush, and in his speech on campus, he said, "China is a friend of Microsoft because Microsoft has always been a friend of China." Sure enough, whatever China made Google do, they didn't make US do anything special. Germany was a much bigger headache.
So I guess I'd say, that, no, you actually don't have to go by those laws if you're in a country that puts personal relationships above the law. Apparently they really don't think of the law the same way we do, and that was a real eye-opener. For me, anyway.
Or maybe the real truth was that the Chinese government figured out that our poor little search engine couldn't find the objectionable stuff anyway except by accident, and they just felt sorry for us. :-)
--Greg (happily retired from it all now)
Re: (Score:3)
" That my loyalty was to the company and I'd do what had to be done, even if I didn't like it."
Note to self:
GregHullender price on his principles is dirt cheat.
If you sell out your principles, did you ever really have them?
Why do you think you know all the aspects of the deal MS made with China? Are you in the executive meeting?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And you PRE-EMPTIVLY came forward for a good bootlicking? Really?
Also, this reminds me of an age-old story. No programmer could ever ethically write a nukeHiroshima() function.
They would be forced by professional ethics to write a nuke(int city) function which could take Hiroshima as a parameter.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... high user ID. Might be a plant. :P
I'm guessing there's censorship going on, regardless of the public spin. It is Microsoft, after all. They love any deal that makes more money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But if you want to work in any of these environments, you have to go by laws
Well, there are two problems here. The first is that the Chinese government and his state corporations don't obey Chinese law. Isn't it forbidden to hack into other peoples computers in China?
The second is the key difference between Microsoft and Google:
Microsoft is directed by your standard issue marketing drone, Ballmer, and the result is what you usually get from western corporations: mindless search for profits. He may as well be operating a arms dealership.
On the other hand, Google (and many of
Re: (Score:2)
The right and wrong on this one is very muddy.
--Greg
Re:More than likely. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, self-regulation is a fantasy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for making it so clear that there is no hope for self-regulation at all. The only hope to keep companies behaving even the slightest therefor must come from government control. Nothing like a honest capitalist to make clear the need for government interference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But the least corrupt governments are just entities with massive costs and power that are mostly controlled by special interest groups and .... companies. I mean, forget foreign corrupt governments, just look at most of the bills that get passed around our US government. They are titled one thing, but in the "fine print" intend something else, many times, the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
if I were a Microsoft shareholder I would want Microsoft to be wanting to make inroads in to this market. Morals do not pay the bills.
Is there any limit to this? Let's take this a couple of steps further: If you were a shareholder in a company that sold torture devices you knew were used on the citizens of the buying country, or maybe tabulating machines you knew were used in a genocide, would you still choose money over morals, knowing that your company is actively supplying tools used to kill and/or mutilate people every day?
Are you kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
you've got people wondering: Is Microsoft aiming to take Google's place in China?"
Of course they are! What a dumb question.
Re: (Score:2)
steveb: It is my space, not just in China! Google was trying to take that. Well, nice try dude!
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course. Microsoft wants to take Google's place everywhere.
In China specifically, Microsoft can't pack up and leave like Google did. China's already a big target for their anti-piracy efforts Their only option is to play nice with the government and get cooperation, no matter how bad it really is.
Re: (Score:2)
pack up and leave like Google did
Except Google haven't. At least as yet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"China's already a big target for their anti-piracy efforts"
I think the whole piracy issue in China is a marketing plot. A Chinese friend once told me Bill Gates said something like "As long as they (Chinese) are pirating our software, it is ok."
Re:Of course (Score:5, Informative)
I think China is developed enough to pay for software now, and I'm very sure Microsoft's anti-piracy efforts are genuine -- even though I haven't worked for Microsoft for two years now.
--Greg
Re: (Score:2)
Once again showing the world that MS wouldn't be anywhere if it wasn't for piracy. How do you think it got into the home? people pirating from work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed THAT for you. Seems the immovable communist state is going to meet the unstoppable monopoly.
Panda Express ranked higher on Bing than Google! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That explains the headache I get every time I use MS Malware.
google's "do no evil" was .... (Score:3, Informative)
maybe Ballmer sees his reflection in China (Score:5, Insightful)
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropiracy9
LoB
i will remember this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid use of the word... (Score:2)
A corporation, particularly multinational, has no concept of the word.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but the government does, and the government is owned by the corporations, so in effect, acting against the corporations that control the government can be considered treason.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of companies were overjoyed by Google's stand in China. It'll open the door for more business. This is just the first move in an orchestrated PR campaign to kiss China's ass.
Am I proud of the whoring, evil profit-above-all motives of our companies? Not especially... I no
Re: (Score:2)
Re:i will remember this (Score:4, Informative)
"Only to see their stock price plummet. "
Based on what? Google's stock didn't.
Hey, maybe it's a good thing! (Score:5, Funny)
You know Microsoft's strategy of embrace, extend, extinguish? Microsoft is embracing China's censorship and lack of social liberties. Let's hope they get to the "extinguish" phase, quick!
Hi I'm Clippy! (Score:2)
Would you like help?
[] Get more info on the one-child policy.
[] Get more info on the one-child policy.
I don't buy it. (Score:2, Insightful)
The important thing to keep in mind here is that Chinese by and large don't share the same mindset as Americans, that being that personal freedoms are more important than anything else. In fact, I don't think people in most Asian nations place value on personal freedoms to the extent Americans do. They'd much rather have a secure, stable society than appease to every little whim. China is no longer the absolute disaster that it was under Mao and China in many was has more of a free market economy than the U
Not at all like the USSR. Really! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Say what you will, but most Chinese will disagree with you.
By no means am I suggesting it's all roses in China. But it's quite a stretch to suggest that China engages in anything on the level the Soviets did. China did plenty of that in the 50s and 60s and if they were still doing it they wouldn't be enjoying this economic boom.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether a majority of Chinese accept the status quo is unknowable. The current rulers of China certainly do not believe they have such public support, since they suppress public political discourse and refuse to allow democratic elections.
If you asked that question of the political prisoners confined in horrendous conditions in Chinese prisons, I suspect you would find that they disagree with you.
Re:I don't buy it. (Score:4, Insightful)
They'd much rather have a secure, stable society than appease to every little whim.
This is a fallacy. Authoritarian government do not promote secure, stable societies. They repress. They oppress. They don't allow people with grievances to air them or to hold the government accountable for their actions.
Authoritarian governments CREATE instability because they eliminate the safety valves that prevent small grievances from becoming revolts.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The Chinese government is one big cesspool of nepotism, ask many Chinese that were actually deported because their house was on a spot that was lucrative to the sons and daughters of the communist party officials.
China will break into a large and long lasting civil war sooner or later.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I don't think people in most Asian nations place value on personal freedoms to the extent Americans do.
This is tendentious bullshit. They haven't been asked, ut still they get jailed and executed for pushing for it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is true to a certain extent in Japan that societal harmony has more of a hold than in, say, America. Japan is very homogeneous and outsiders are seen as disrupting this. That may come about by simply having their own island for a very long time, somewhat like a house with a few cats when a new one is introduced.
I'm not sure about the other Asian countries. Culture is a touchy thing and I don't anyone would confuse the Chinese with the Japanese culture. It also is not clear to me that over time,
Re: (Score:2)
But then what was the point of even entering the Chinese market? If they really had these high ideals, they would stop catering to other restrictive markets as well. In Germany, Nazi websites are censored by Google for instance. We may not like the Nazi websites, but if they really believed in the ideals that they say they do, they would leave Germany as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the smart thing to do (Score:2)
For more strategic advice, refer to Armand Hammer.
No it isn't (Score:2)
RTFP (Score:2)
Microsoft is desperate for new revenue... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and is willing to sell the corporate soul to obtain it.
I agree, except to say that Microsoft has no soul to sell, making the sale that much easier. I think Krupp had the same easy path to collusion with the Nazis.
Sorry, that is a lie (Score:4, Insightful)
MS is NOT selling its soul in China for revenue. You cannot sell what you do not have. Ballmer and Gates have no morals. Oh, they are not evil, that takes a commitment. They just have absolutely no moral compass whatsoever. Look at how Bill Gates does his charity work, always with an angle to somehow better MS. It is the way he thinks.
And before you defend him, remember that is a LOT easier to have morals if you are rich. If MS pulled out of China what would happen to these two guys? Absolutely nothing. They ain't doing this to survive, they are doing it for yet another billion whose difference they will never ever notice.
Re: (Score:2)
I think, more accurately, Gates and Ballmer cannot sell what they've already sold.
In China there are people and dollars (Score:2, Informative)
M$ says: "Give us the dollars; fuck the people".
OK, fine. That's business.
Except that corporations (from Latin corpus meaning "body") enjoy a legal status as an entity, like a person. It should be possible for this legal entity ("body") to have a conscience. Some seem too, via the actions of their bosses. Maybe Google actually does.
M$ has shown time and time again that it does not.
I want to make an anology with Union Carbide. This is from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster [wikipedia.org]:
Being Evil - Just Part of the Business Plan (Score:5, Informative)
With Google "Don't be evil" is a shibboleth that sets an aspirational goal which, as so often happens in the real world, may only be honored in the breech.
With Microsoft "being evil" is, and has always been, at the core of their whole business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship? Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft will cooperate as long as they have a shot at public sector revenue. This is hardly unique to China. If the nation of Venezuela wanted Microsoft products, they'd take their money.
I think American crossed the line into full-scale hipocracy(sp!!) by calling China out on censorship. The Chinese are more overt, but the effects are the same.
How about killing prisoners at Guantanamo? http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368 [harpers.org] How was that story handled?? I'd argue that's a pretty serious situation and yet, somehow the mainstream media won't touch it. The title AP gave it was "Harper's questions three Guantanamo deaths." Somehow, prisoners under 24/7 observation are able to stuff rags down their throats AND THEN hang themselves? There's room for 'a question?' http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-18-guantanamo-deaths_N.htm?csp=34 [usatoday.com]
How about the *massive* transfer of weath orchestrated by the Fed and Treasury? It's a 'bailout.' Maiden Lane 3 somehow generates profits in a way obvious to exactly no one. GM's debt holders got barely pennies on the dollar depending on their debt senority and yet AIG's counter parties got every single cent back. And the headline is "this is troubling" ?? http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2010/db2010018_994080.htm [businessweek.com]
Let's go back a few years to Sibel Edmonds story that *no* media would touch.
I missed the part where the American Republic was a bastion of Freedom.
You are allowed to write it. (Score:2)
The USA is the bastion of freedom. The difference between the USA and China, is that, in the USA, you can say whatever you want. Like, you talk about Gitmo, but you are allowed to level your charges. Whether other people believe you is not the deal. In China, or Iran, or any other number of places, people are really being oppressed and really being killed. IT's just not the same to compare the real struggle for freedom in despotic regimes with the desire of some losers in the USA to get attention with
Re: (Score:2)
but you are allowed to level your charges. Whether other people believe you is not the deal.
Fair point. I hadn't thought of it that way. So, what's your reason for categorizing the examples as lunatic rambling? I'm serious here. Because I don't get it. Do you like your money taken from you by your government? You think some bad guys probably dying at the hand of your government is good? Despotic regimes do the same thing.
the real struggle for freedom
Believe it or not, I'm sure we actually agree on lo
Re: (Score:2)
t is written by a Columbia Law School professor and human rights lawyer and appears to be very well researched.
columbia Law School professor, that is the epitomy of loser in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have to enlighten me, I'm a computer geek not a lawyer, why does that make him a loser? So I assume you can do better?
Columbia is a breeding ground for left wing, extreme radicals. They may be well versed in law, but their politics and outlook on life is so much of a dramatic assault on mine that frankly I would as foolish as a Chamberlin if I tried to compromise or hear them out. I cannot have the luxury that they would be honest, as most radicals are not, nor believe that they are even handed. I
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the mainstream media never covered it, the difference is still enormous. For one thing, you can still find those articles on the internet, something you wouldn't be able to do in China if it were the Chinese government. For another thing, the writers of those articles aren't arrested, kidnapped, torchured, killed, or harvested for organds. If you really don't see the difference... I don't even know what to say.
Re: (Score:2)
For another thing, the writers of those articles aren't arrested
I really do mean to burst your world view bubble because reporters most certainly are jailed in the U.S.
http://www.judithmiller.com/537/reporter-jailed-after-refusing-to-name-source [judithmiller.com]
Killing and torture is no longer the difference between Good American Free and Axis of Evil Free.
Is it the case that 'organ harvesting,' is the delineation between a good free and a bad free? I want to know where the line is for you. It's not a flamebait question.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think American crossed the line into full-scale hipocracy(sp!!)
I believe the correct spelling is "hippocracy", if you mean a nation ruled by large semi-aquatic mammals.
Pedantic Police Warning (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the large semi-aquatic mammals aren't in the picture. The word "hippopotamus" is made up of hippo, coming from the Greek for "horse" (as in 'hippodrome'), and potamus, or "river" (as in 'Mesopotamia'). Hence, a (or 'an', depending) hippocracy would be a nation ruled by horses. Which we've almost had in history, if memory ser
and then there's the hippocratic oath (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath [wikipedia.org]
which is the oath taken by equine senators upon taking office. i think
The corporate foolishness (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that, the Communist Revolution in China is essentially lawless. The whole idea of a corporation requires that laws actually exist and be consistently enforced. You have to have property rights, speech rights, indeed, human rights for corporations to happen, otherwise, they too can be randomly jailed and seized - witness what's going on in Venezuela. So, really, Microsoft and Walmart and other China collaborators are really just hoping that the current personalities in China will be consistent, and the
If you know your history... (Score:2, Insightful)
I am sure IBM didn't see anything wrong with Nazi Germany either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if this will have any impact Ubuntu's recent announcement that they are switching to use Yahoo (which is Microsoft Bing underneath) as the default search engine in their next release.
Yahoo already has a history of rolling over for the Chinese government [bbc.co.uk]. If Canonical doesn't mind associating with a company that helps oppressive regimes track down dissidents, I don't think Microsoft's announcement is going to make much difference.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, I just can't look at Canonical/Ubuntu the same way any more. It's like Slipknot after the Coq Roq lawsuit... [thesmokinggun.com]
Re: (Score:2)