Re: ROCHESTER PUSHES BACK 2000 ANNOUNCE DATE

Heh, heh, heh. I had to laugh at that one for sure. I have wondered many times 
why IBM
(which at the time had perhaps a 70% market share) got slapped silly over 
announcing a non
existent product (S/370 running VM my poor memory seems to recall) in order to 
freeze sales
at Control Data and Microshaft (with over a 90% share) gets away with it 
constantly. (I
remember the original IBM ads in the Wall Street Journal proclaiming the 
"product" in '69 or
'70.)

I'm just not sufficiently knowledgeable about the law, I suppose, but I can't 
see why the
Attorneys General of at least some big "pro consumer" states like California 
haven't sued
MS's buns off for consumer fraud and false statements rather than participating 
in that
Quixotic antitrust suit. It's really a shame someone can't make a case that MS 
not
delivering promised features (like in-memory database technology) in Win 2K was 
damaging to
their business because of plans previously made based on MS announcements. (I 
know, they
cover their a** with fine print in all their pronouncements about "some 
features may not be
delivered", etc., etc. while at the same time loudly proclaiming this and that 
feature
orally. Hmm. In California, oral promises are as binding as written ones. In 
Texas, as I
recall, the Deceptive Trade Practices Act specifically bans language in 
contracts that
disclaims oral promises previously made to induce a consumer to sign the 
contract or
purchase the product.) I suppose our politically motivated, publicity seeking 
Justice Dept.
and Attorneys General would rather spend millions on a lawsuit of dubious merit 
the
"winning" of which (if you can call it that) will produce little difference in 
MS's business
practices rather than try to prove the company has made deliberate false 
statements to
induce customers to by its products over a competitor.

It certainly seems that the IBM of today would rather err on the side of 
EXTREME caution
rather than face further government scrutiny over its business practices. Guess 
MS might do
that, too, if it ever loses a big battle in court or has its business seriously 
disrupted by
a years long antitrust suit where every decision has to be run by the lawyers 
first. (Not
likely I'd say.)

Randy Mangham
Pacific Crest Consulting
San Diego, CA

James W Kilgore wrote:

> Randy Mangham wrote:
> >
> > As for holding off on announcing products in 2000 because people aren't 
>going to buy
> > them: Well, maybe IBM should follow the Microsoft rule. Hype the hell out 
>of the
> > product long before it's going to be available. Make everybody WANT to buy 
>the product
> > they can't get hold of. It sure seems to work for Redmond.
>
> IBM did this once before.  The S/360 running DOS.
>
> Got the Justice Department all over them.   Slapped the cuffs on big
> blue for 25 years.
>
> I guess those DOJ folks are all retired by now.
>
> The new kids aren't nearly as effective.
>
> Must be using Windows <g>
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
> +---

+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---