IP: Another take on Microsoft-specific worms from Poor Richard

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> From: Poor Richard
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
>
> given that poor richard is often cast as the contrarian, it falls to him to
> act as microsoft apologist for the esteemed interesting-people list.
>
> poor richard asks that readers give him the benefit of the doubt as a
> neutral party with respect to microsoft.
>
> for example, while poor richard is of a mind to think that microsoft is
> getting a raw deal with respect to its antitrust dealings, he readily
> concedes that microsoft's legal problems are entirely of its own making.
>
> a cynic might observe that had microsoft been spreading its largesse around
> the beltway five years ago, not only would there not be any talk of
> antitrust, but we'd probably have messr. gates' portrait on the five dollar
> bill. instead, poor richard observes that it's all part of the democratic
> experience, and yes, microsoft should have integrated themselves into the
> governing and regulatory aspects of america years ago, just as we expect of
> all our important consitutencies. poor richard has never been a fan of
> unilaterial disarmament (or forgetting to arm oneself to begin with, which,
> combined with a fair amount of hubris, is the root of microsoft's legal
> problems).
>
> with respect to the susceptibility of microsoft products to infection, poor
> richard got quite a laugh when the official microsoft position quoted a
> famous felon ("because that's where the money is"). one might think that the
> lawyers who have so badly mangled the antitrust defense might, at the very
> least, have sent out an inter-office memo to all staff suggesting that no
> one give doj any ideas about a criminal investigation... perhaps such a memo
> was sent, via e-mail, but inadvertantly given a subject of ILOVEYOU.
>
> more to the point: poor richard regrets to inform the offended digerati that
> microsoft is selling products that consumers want to buy. consumers and
> businesses are more concerned about convenience than security. the plain
> fact is that mass audiences prefer day-in and day-out convenience over
> security, and microsoft sells to the mass audience.
>
> microsoft is hardly alone in this behavior. just ask any credit card issuing
> bank or their associations (i.e., VISA or Mastercard). for the truly
> mean-spirited, poor richard suggests that the next time you're at an
> e-commerce conversazione, ask the obligatory VISA or Mastercard guy how much
> fraud occurs, on average, for each card issued in the united states. poor
> richard predicts that, in polite company, this will result in an impolite
> silence.
>
> certainly it is within the technical prowess of the associations to develop
> technologies that are much more secure; however none of these things get
> deployed because consumers won't put up with the added hassle. (for example,
> poor richard has a policy of not allowing sales clerks to take a dna sample
> from the inside of his mouth for identification purchases, regardless of the
> amount of the purchase.)
>
> what poor richard has yet to see from the numerous digerati who pooh-pooh
> microsoft's products is a concrete example as to how security can be
> increased without decreasing convenience. poor richards suspects that
> whoever figures that out should be able to have a very profitable
> negotiation with the man who, in an alternative universe, has his portrait
> on the five dollar bill.
>
> as always, poor richard is happy to be proven wrong...