1998 IEEE Corporate Innovation Recognition for Microsoft

[Richard Royston]

Dear Joe:

The following represents my personal comments, and in no way reflects any 
particular position of the company for which I work.

I was outraged to read in my October 1998 copy of "the institute" that in 
recognizing Microsoft's achievement "for making computer technology accessible 
to the home, business and classroom", this was attributed to "its innovative 
software developments."

This is analagous to recognizing John D. Rockefeller Senior for bringing the 
benfits of petroleum to the American public, and attributing this to his 
technical innovations rather than his business acumen.

In my view Microsoft has not been responsible for any technical innovations 
worthy of this award. It has only been responsible for bringing other people's 
innovation to the public through its predatory business tactics in taking over 
either the products or the ideas of others so as to preserve Microsoft's 
monopoly. I would agree that it has also put a lot of resources into 
implementing and enhancing them, but this does not fit my definition of 
innovation.

Bill Gates has been even more successful and adept at promoting Microsoft's 
predominance and near-monoply than Thomas J. Watson Junior ever was at 
promoting IBM's, and certainly qualifies for some award for entrepreneurial 
creativity and innovation. In fact, at its Yorktown Heights research 
laboratory, I believe IBM produced far more innovative technical ideas than 
Microsoft ever has.

I have been disheartened by the very limited scope and not very effective 
prosecution of the Justice Department's anti-trust suit against Microsoft, and 
have to take comfort in the hope that the natural evolution of market forces 
will accomplish what the Justice Department seems unable to do. Finding the 
leaders of IEEE also on Bill Gates' side is even more discouraging to me.

I won't bore you with a case-by-case analysis of Microsoft's products, but I 
hope that you will nonetheless believe that I am completely serious and 
sincere in my opinions about Microsoft.

I had always believed that IEEE was primarily a professional society, with a 
strong technical bent. I now have to wonder if it isn't just a creature of big 
business that is permitted to indulge in technical activities when they don't 
interfere with business. I remember a discussion with you some time ago about 
how we did not think it a good idea for IEEE to act like a Trade Union. 
Equally, I don't believe it should be a promoter of big business.

I must now consider very seriously whether I wish to continue to belong to the 
IEEE. The obvious thing to do would be to try to influence other members to 
think as I do. As I am, however, no longer as active technically and 
professionally as I used to be, I'm not sure how to do that. If you had the 
time and interest to make any suggestions on this, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Please feel free to forward this to the Editor of any IEEE publication if you 
think that would be appropriate or useful. Since I have quoted some of your 
opinions, maybe I should edit those out and send it myself.

Thanks

Richard Royston


------- End of Forwarded Message



***
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to discuss-request at blu.org