Now that the Washington killjoys have slapped the hands in the cookie jaragain, Microsoft has spun off negative responses ranging from Gates'sgolly-gee-whiz incredulity to top lawyer William "Duke" Neukom's tightlyrolled party lines. Not to be outdone, Steve Ballmer, the rabid dog ofRancho Redmondo, took a surprising potshot at Madam Attorney Generalyesterday as he introduced the company's latest suite of server products.When asked if the latest BackOfficebundle might attract more federal attention, Ballmer huffed and puffedlike Keith Richards backstage: "I say the heck with Janet Reno on thispoint."
"Heck" isn't such a bad word, but I still say someone should slip some Prozac intoSteve's smoothie.The DOJ files dozens upon dozens of suits a year, and the fact thatnotre ch?re Madame AG decided to make a personal appearance andstatement against Microsoft Monday probably means she's paying moreattention than usual. Baldie Ballmer should keep his yap shut.
Of course, you can't be a real cyberspace cowboy if you don't shoot fromthe lip. Legendary loudmouth Scott McNealy couldn't help butweigh in on the matter, but not in the way you might think. Instead offalling to his knees and kissing Reno's sensible shoes, he felt compelledto spit-shine them. Speaking yesterday to Sun's manufacturing partners,McCheesy called the 1995 consent decree that Microsoft signed "anabsolutely toothless, worthless piece of legislation. You can't gumMicrosoft to death."
He then warned that the Justice effort could have the unintended effect ofmaking Microsoft stronger because, according to monopoly theory, rationalcustomers will buy from the monopolist. Scott, I can hear you pantingbetween the lines. Be a good boy and maybe one day you'll corner the marketon network computers!
While all eyes in das nation's kapital focus on the MS mano-a-mano, a pieceof legislation is quietly working its way through the Senate that couldaffect the ownership of online intellectual property. As my fellow NEWS.COMmies reported, a bill underconsideration to protect databases is generally seen as a compromiseversion of the treaty considered last winter in Geneva during the U.N.World Intellectual Property Organization summit. Much to the chagrin ofbehemoth publishers such as Reed Elsevier, owners of Lexis-Nexis, the WIPO treaty diedfaster than a yodel in a straw hut.
Educators, scientists, librarians, and other noble folk breathed a sigh ofrelief, as they felt the treaty would have locked up all sorts of info inperpetuity and killed "fair use." But according to Beltway blab, thecurrent Senate bill, although promoted as protecting fair use, couldeventually have the opposite effect thanks to vague language about whatparts of a collection of information can and cannot be copyrighted. My D.C.dirt-dishers also say the bill has the approval of the same big publishersthat were pushing their agenda in Geneva. Fair-use proponents are nervousall over again.
Speaking of nervous, anxious Skinnophiles are still sending me the "AOL 4.0cookie" letter. Stop it! AOL has called it a hoax, the press has reportedon it, and it's yesterday's lunch meat,dig? Whether you believe AOL or not, don't send me anything else unlessit's fresh.
One company called "Network Associates" is bad enough. But three? If the proposed mind-meld of antivirusvendor McAfee Associates and network equipment maker Network General isn'ttear-gassed by the Renoistas, the resulting enfant terrible will have the same name as anOregonian network consultancyand a high-tech PR firm. When askedif he smelled lawsuit, an exec at Network Associates--the PR firm, thatis--reportedly took the understated road and said only that the name replicationwas "um, a bit confusing." Praise the Lord and pass the irony: one of thefirm's main clients is McAfee's rival Symantec.Opium may be the religion of the masses, but my spirits soar on rumors. Puff one my way, and I'll give you a tokin' of my appreciation.