How Microsoft Lobbies
Published --User:Schestowitz|Schestowitz 15:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
How Microsoft Derails Standards-and-Software-Freedom-Favouring Public Policy
Summary: The modus operandi of Microsoft whenever a public policy is made that may exclude Microsoft's standards-hostile, user-disrespecting, and overly-expensive software
T
Microsoft's business model depends on restrictive proprietary software coupled with non-interoperable formats to produce a vendor lock-in relationship with its customers. It is no wonder than why Microsoft is trying to sabotage policy that encourages Free software and open standards. Microsoft's main ammunition in this attack is lying. This translates into numerous, often dirty and immoral tactics. Statements along the lines of "'excluding proprietary' is 'removing choice'" (Microsoft has the BSA lobby with this lie in numerous instances) are fabricated and policies are removed altogether by implanting cronies who reverse predecessors' ideas (see [cref 1094 Peter Quinn's story]). In recent years, it is common for Microsoft to pretend that it too is open source (a familiar tactic in recent years), and fakers [cref 46835 and even professors have been bribed] to say that it is practical to use a mixture of both Free and proprietary. In the past, MS only went for the full lobby of pushing proprietary only.
█
How Microsoft Derails Standards-and-Software-Freedom-Favouring Public Policy
Summary: The modus operandi of Microsoft whenever a public policy is made that may exclude Microsoft's standards-hostile, user-disrespecting, and overly-expensive software
T
Microsoft's business model depends on restrictive proprietary software coupled with non-interoperable formats to produce a vendor lock-in relationship with its customers. It is no wonder than why Microsoft is trying to sabotage policy that encourages Free software and open standards. Microsoft's main ammunition in this attack is lying. This translates into numerous, often dirty and immoral tactics. Statements along the lines of "'excluding proprietary' is 'removing choice'" (Microsoft has the BSA lobby with this lie in numerous instances) are fabricated and policies are removed altogether by implanting cronies who reverse predecessors' ideas (see [cref 1094 Peter Quinn's story]). In recent years, it is common for Microsoft to pretend that it too is open source (a familiar tactic in recent years), and fakers [cref 46835 and even professors have been bribed] to say that it is practical to use a mixture of both Free and proprietary. In the past, MS only went for the full lobby of pushing proprietary only.
█