Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft's Ethical Guidelines

Posted by kdawson on Tue Oct 14, 2008 04:30 AM
from the oxy-meet-moron dept.
hankwang writes "Did you know that Microsoft has ethical guidelines? It's good to know that 'Microsoft did not make any payments to foreign government officials' while lobbying for OOXML, and that 'Microsoft conducts its business in compliance with laws designed to promote fair competition' every time they suppressed competitors. In their Corporate Citizenship section, they discuss how the customer-focused approach creates products that work well with those of competitors and open-source solutions. So all the reverse-engineering by Samba and OpenOffice.org developers wasn't really necessary."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Muckluck (759718) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @04:33AM (#25366369)
    Ethics? Make your time...
  • by David Gerard (12369) <slashdot@@@davidgerard...co...uk> on Tuesday October 14 2008, @04:44AM (#25366423) Homepage

    Microsoft has really lost it when it comes to evil these days. Apple's evil is just ridiculously better [today.com]. Microsoft's evil was damn fine in the 1990s, but these days it's just ... sorta lame. I mean, Vista - what dismally poorly executed evil! And the Zune, oh dear.

    So trying to be good is all that's left to them. Can they go straight? Or will it be straight back to crime?

    • by weber (36246) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @06:27AM (#25366819)

      "You're not quite evil enough. You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're the margarine of evil. You're the Diet Coke of evil, just one calorie, not evil enough."
          -- Dr. Evil

      • Re:Unsurprising (Score:5, Interesting)

        by davester666 (731373) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @06:25AM (#25366811) Journal

        Microsoft isn't evil. It simply spends a lot of it's time exploring the boundaries of the law around the world. And when you explore boarders, half the time you're on one side and the rest on the other side.

        All in an effort to help the children (new corporations).

        So they will know "You can go this far without getting into trouble. You can go this much further, and pay a small fine after doing it for 10 years. You can go twice as far, but then the fine will be 10 times higher, but you will only have to pay it 50 years later." And so on...

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2008, @06:56AM (#25366979)
        All true, but somewhat beside the point.

        Microsoft is just misunderstood. People think that Microsoft is a software company, but it isn't. Microsoft is an abuse company that sells software as a way of delivering abuse. Microsoft's evil is not a side-effect of their management philosophy, Microsoft's evil is their business model.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Sounds about right.

          I heard that the next major version of windows will have a SQL-based file system.

          And General Protection Fault / Illegal operation has occured is being enhanced.

          Not only will windows now kill applications at random, but will corrupt files you were working on at random.

          And the newest enhancement is corrupting files you weren't working on at random.

          Because the documents you weren't working on will be stored on disk within the same binary blob.

          Windows explorer will transparently

  • by jkrise (535370) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @04:44AM (#25366425) Journal

    "....Microsoft provides a broad range of policies, programs, and products that are focused on our commitment to responsible and ethical business practices that promote user choice, industry opportunity, interoperability, and transparency....."

    Last I checked Microsoft's Exchange Server works well only with IE. Unlike Gmail or Yahoo mail. Exchange is lousy with Firefox, Opera or Safari. Where is the choice?

    And Exchange Server 2008 I belive even screws up the IMAP support, so Thunderbird users get the bird as well... So much for interoperability and transparency.

    • by dvice_null (981029) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @04:55AM (#25366463)

      > Where is the choice?

      You can pick any browser you want from these alternatives: IE6, IE7, IE8

      • by jkrise (535370) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @05:08AM (#25366515) Journal

        You can pick any browser you want from these alternatives: IE6, IE7, IE8

        Not always. You can't pick IE6 AND Vista. Many sites work well only with IE6.

        Recent versions of Exchange Server work well only with IE7 or later. So in a Corporate setting with Win2K systems running IE6 for the Corporate Intranet, things get very clunky and unmanagable. Add multiple versions of SharePoint, Office, Active Directory... and pretty soon, you realise even Microsoft's products do not work well between and amnongst themselves. Unless you upgrade all of them, all at once. Which is pretty much impractical and terribly expensive.

      • by Toreo asesino (951231) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @05:12AM (#25366523) Journal

        Actually, Exchange works just fine on any browser you want. Some features aren't supported (like sending rich-text emails), but 95% is.

        But then, there's still a bunch of stuff you can't do on web-access for any browser, so this is hardly a show-stopper. Exchange was never meant to be just a web-mail server believe it or not.

        • by canix (1176421) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @05:20AM (#25366563)
          Strange definition of "works just fine" - works fine but not everything works. "Works just about" would have been better.
        • by MightyYar (622222) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @07:09AM (#25367063)

          There is no way to search your messages from any browser except IE... that is a broken email program!

          I don't expect it to be as feature-rich as Outlook, and I don't even care if IE has more features... but SEARCH? As a result, I forward all of my mail to a gmail account. Yeah, yeah, yeah, what if my gmail is compromised. Cry me a river.

        • Exchange was never meant to be an Internet mail server at all - this is why it is so bad at it e.g. email outside the system is very limited in comparison with internal messages

          It was designed to be (and still is) a corporate messaging and collaboration system, internet email was bolted on and is still (apparently) an afterthought

          Webmail is only to be used if you cannot connect to the network and use a proper client (Outlook), it is a stopgap and is not intended to be the normal interface

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Exchange was never meant to be just a web-mail server believe it or not.

            So what is Microsoft's solution for users trying to access their email while travelling?

            Exchange. It was designed to support web mail, but it isn't the primary purpose.

    • by Hognoxious (631665) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @07:38AM (#25367249) Homepage Journal

      It looks like you're trying to write some ethical conduct guidelines.

      Would you prefer:

      * Vague platitudes and general statements of the obvious
      * Poetic idealism interspersed with wishful thinking
      * A statement that boils down to "We do what we can get away with, no more no less. If it was wrong it would be illegal, wouldn't it?"

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Uhm, Exchange 2003 at least certainly works with FireFox - I use it daily. It may not be as rich as the environment you get with IE, but it certainly is perfectly usable.

        But why? It looks like it's been specifically engineered that way, not anything technologically lacking in Firefox or Opera. Try replying to a neat HTML email in Firefox and it reverts to basic text, and looks terribly ugly. Also a simple plain vanilla email from Firefox is rendered in a miniscule size font when read with IE.

        Mere meaningl

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2008, @05:45AM (#25366643)

          Why? How about because Firefox wasn't there when Exchange 2003 was released? Because Netscape didn't have an XMLHTTP facility; Ajax came from IE and Outlook Web access.

          But no, really it's a conspiracy that MS didn't have a soothsayer on the Exchange team so they could plan from a browser that wouldn't be created for another year, and when there wasn't a standard way of accessing what was, at the time, an IE only extension. Damn them. DAMN THEM TO HELL.

          • by somersault (912633) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @06:54AM (#25366961) Homepage Journal

            From http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2006/09/13/428901.aspx [msexchangeteam.com]

            Why doesn't Premium work on Firefox?

            Before I wrap up, I'd like to address the question we often receive about why OWA Premium doesn't work in non IE browsers. The following is heavily plagiarized from others who have answered this question as well (thanks Kristian!), and if after reading this you are still unclear as to why Premium doesn't work on Firefox, please feel free to post your questions here and I'll do my best to answer them.

            Shockingly, the decision to make OWA Premium only work on IE6+ has nothing to do with forcing people to use other Microsoft products (sorry to have to dispel the conspiracy, and just when Oliver Stone and Kevin Costner were starting pre-production on "OWA: The Movie "). The decision was made, simply enough, due to costs, time, and customer need.

            The browser support we have for OWA Premium and OWA Light is due to usage share among our customers, and the development and test investment it takes to support additional browsers/versions. This doesn't mean the browser statistics for "browsers hitting OWA", which would be skewed based on our previous browser support. We look at the browser statistics for "browsers used on the Internet" and "browsers used within our customer organizations", as well as listening to what customers are asking for, since statistics, surveys, site logs, and research firms never tell the full story. The browser matrix of OWA is about where we allocate our investments, and the need of additional browser support as compared to the need for all the other OWA features our customers want. We have limited resources, limited time, and a very large set of potential features.

            I understand it would be a PITA for them to add in support for 'premium' features in every browser, but FireFox has shown to be pretty popular in general. It's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy to say "we don't add in these features for other browsers because nobody is using those browsers for OWA". If they added in support for those features in firefox they'd probably find the percentage of users using firefox for OWA increases a lot. I know I used to fire up IE just to use OWA.

                • by nabsltd (1313397) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @07:49AM (#25367341)

                  Well, OWA for Exchange 2003 doesn't ask to install any ActiveX components so I'm not so sure.

                  I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to have hard-coded into IE something like "hey, this is the OWA ActiveX...it's cool...install it without asking the user regardless of the security settings they have".

  • Ethics (Score:5, Interesting)

    by symes (835608) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @04:44AM (#25366427) Journal
    You know, sometimes you'll find organisations with the most detailed and extensive ethical guidelines imaginable. And in the same cupboard you'll find several inches of dust. "A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else" (Gandhi, M).
    • Re:Ethics (Score:5, Informative)

      by dnoyeb (547705) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @07:33AM (#25367229) Homepage Journal

      Whats funny is that at least what is posted is not MS ethics. Those are Federal laws. They can call them ethics if they want, but not paying off foreign officials is not an ethical question. Its a legal one.

      Anything to do with gaining favor from a foreign government is strictly illegal. (except for attempts to speed up what is the natural process)

  • by crispi (131688) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @04:48AM (#25366437)

    I'm sure they have some ethics around somewhere? ...somewhere... ...still looking...

    Aha! ActiveEthics(TM).

  • by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @04:49AM (#25366447)
    I'll point out that they've had a big anti-trust target painted on their foreheads (both in the US and the EU) for a long long time now. I'm sure they actually do spend a lot of time making sure they don't run afoul of the local regulators, watchdog groups and newspapers.

    Having said that, Microsoft?? Ethics??? hahahahaha LET THE BASHING BEGIN! Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of assholes!
  • by golodh (893453) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @04:53AM (#25366455)
    The opening post displays a startling lack of insight as far as the purpose of having a Code of Conduct is concerned.

    There really do seem to be people who believe that a Code of Conduct is there to limit what a company can do. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    First and foremost, a Code of Conduct is an integral part of the company's PR effort. Every self-respecting company has to have one. It's cool to have one, and you look stupid and unsophisticated if you don't. Besides, there is no need to be without. There are templates with good-sounding Codes of Conduct that are guaranteed to leave everyone a comfortably free hand.

    Secondly: damage limitation. A Code of Conduct is there to be able to shield a company from legal consequences of unethical conduct by it's employees on its behalf. If an employee is caught red-handed, it really helps if a company is able to state (truthfully) that this action contravenes their official Code of Conduct. This can really limit the damage.

    • by b00le (714402) <interference.libero@it> on Tuesday October 14 2008, @05:06AM (#25366505) Homepage
      My own employers have an ethics code which is 33 pages of closely-spaced Maoist gibberish, most of which has nothing at all to do with the ethics of company, or managerial, behaviour and much of which is actually exhortations to blind obedience for employees. All corporations tend to authoritarianism, and these are the people who actually own the world, while blathering about freedom and democracy. The truth is that anyone employed by a large corporation spends most of their waking hours living in a totalitarian dictatorship - could this be what is wrong with Western Civilisation?
      • by timmarhy (659436) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @06:01AM (#25366717)
        what i pose to you, is how would you do things better? try running a company where the janitor gets an equal vote on say, corporate strategy and see how long you last.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        My employer's senior VPs got caught bribing middle eastern royals some years ago in a very public scandal. To atone for their sins, the corporation must implement a 23-point ethics recovery plan contrived by outside consultants. What really pisses off the rank and file employees of this multinational is that we're the ones being forced to watch to a never-ending stream of training videos (like the VD films of past eras) when it's the Rolex and pinkie ring crowd that should get the Clockwork Orange treatment

  • by Tuqui (96668) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @04:56AM (#25366467) Homepage

    'Microsoft did not make any payments to foreign government officials' while lobbying for OOXML

    But obviously they pay bribes to squash the Open Source Software Law in Peru [theregister.co.uk]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Oh, but Microsoft's public 'donations' are never without strings. They should be more appropriately be thought of as deep discounts on their products in order to foster lock-in.

        So when those deep discounts are being given to governments, especially when those governments are contemplating the sovereignty issues inherent in being locked-in to a single vendor, you have to start wondering whether or not the word 'bribe' isn't more appropriate. Microsoft is basically using economic inducements to entice gover

  • Ethics? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2008, @05:17AM (#25366547)

    I suspect that if I looked up Ethics in MS Encarta it would probably say

    "Ethics - A county to the east of London"

    ---------
    Essex for non-uk readers

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2008, @05:19AM (#25366559)

    "We find the word 'no' to be a bit strong, and not in the best interest of the company or some of its stock holders. For this reason, 'some' evil is allowed if it increases long term growth or profits. Or if Steve Ballmer wishes it. Please keep this in mind in your dealings as we do not want employees to become confused that they are working for Google."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2008, @05:20AM (#25366561)

    *** This page intentionally left blank ***

  • Weasel words (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dutchd00d (823703) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @06:27AM (#25366823) Homepage
    Funny how they say "Microsoft conducts its business in compliance with laws designed to promote fair competition" instead of "Microsoft will not engage in unfair competition". Gotta keep those loopholes open!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      More importantly - why bother to write that you'll do something that is a legal obligation anyway (debates about whether MS broke it are irrelevant). If they wrote "Microsoft will not conduct its business in compliance with laws designed to promote fair competition", then they'd be showing intention of breaking the law - there is no other interpretation.

      So what they've stated is basically a statutory requirement of them anyway. This is the sort of things that should warn you off a company - that they "agr

  • Not evil (Score:5, Funny)

    by HangingChad (677530) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @06:44AM (#25366917) Homepage

    Microsoft is not evil, they have merely raised incompetence to a level that's indistinguishable from malice. Redmond is not capable of the consistency of purpose and execution that really good evil requires.

  • Ethics (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jav1231 (539129) on Tuesday October 14 2008, @07:40AM (#25367263)
    Ethics: Things you can get fired for but Microsoft executives can't.
  • Nigeria (Score:3, Funny)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday October 14 2008, @08:22AM (#25367695) Homepage Journal

    Didn't the Nigerian government expose how Microsoft was bribing them to move away from Linux on Classmate PCs?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      What happened to the kdawsonfud tags?

      The problem with tags like these is that they get overused so that every story by kdawson ends up with one. One might argue that this might be entirely warranted due to constant bias, but it still looks like a knee-jerk reaction to any post. It dilutes the term when used too much.

      In this case: yes, it does seem unfair to associate these ethical guidelines with the reverse-engineering that went on prior to the guidelines being published. The work on Samba started over a decade before the Microsoft document w

    • Slashdot is like midnight basketball leagues for nerds. It keeps them off the streets where they might get into trouble.