This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2009/09/01/microsoft-mccarthyism/.
Posted in Antitrust, Deception, FUD, GNU/Linux, Marketing, Microsoft, Vista 7 at 3:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Microsoft’s journalists ‘hit list’
Summary: Microsoft classifies journalists by their level of affinity for Microsoft, then seeds the press using more “loyal” people
AS we last noted 3 days ago, Microsoft collects dossiers on journalists using its PR agencies/departments. It is akin to McCarthyism.
=> Microsoft collects dossiers on journalists | ↺ its PR agencies/departments | ↺ McCarthyism
What is it all about?
Well, Microsoft does approach journalists in order for them to disseminate new information. For instance, if Microsoft has layoffs to announce, it would rather have a friendly journalist break the news. If a new product is being announced, Microsoft needs to create excitement by preparing selected journalists and using an embargo/NDA to storm the press simultaneously and thus crash/overwhelm/silence opposition. There are even examples where Microsoft hand-picked journalists based on their profiles (it kicked out the ‘wrong’ people) and then gave them laptops with Vista 7 before anyone else was even able to have an experience with the operating system (pre-beta). This way, Microsoft created the early consensus that Vista 7 was good. It conveniently neglected to reveal the fact that only friendly folks (to Microsoft) were able to write anything based on a hands-on experience. The same happens at present because mostly MSDN subscribers and Windows enthusiasts ever write anything about the product which they impatiently wait (it has not been released yet). It was almost exactly the same with Vista in 2006.
=> hand-picked journalists based on their profiles | ↺ the early consensus that Vista 7 was good | only friendly folks (to Microsoft) were able to write anything based on a hands-on experience
“This way, Microsoft created the early consensus that Vista 7 was good.”Another opportunity for Microsoft to approach journalists whom it likes is when Microsoft’s competition has an important announcement to make — an announcement that Microsoft wants to derail publicly without it ever appearing like Microsoft is responsible for it. Think of it as “party pooper by proxy”. Such was the case when Microsoft used Maureen O’Gara to issue anti-OSDL (its close equivalent is now known as “Linux Foundation”) material [1, 2]. O’Gara writes for Sys-Con, which has a serious spam and defamation problem [1, 2]. After all that abuse came a Google ban, but there is seemingly a new domain replacing the former (or maybe a separate domain altogether). Anyway, lack of integrity in this ‘news’ site is what needs to be remembered.
=> 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ↺ abuse | ↺ Google ban | ↺ new | ↺ domain
The O’Gara+Microsoft+Waggener Edstrom versus OSDL/Linux incident has already been covered in Groklaw, but Groklaw misses/leaves out much of the document, which Pamela Jones does not present in plain text form. She does, however, end with:
=> ↺ end with
Here’s the complete exhibit as text, with the exception of the list of press and analyst contacts at the very end, which you can read from the PDF. It’s certainly worth doing. It’s a long list of press/analyst contacts, many with notations as to whether they were perceived to be “balanced” or “negative”, such as Stephen Shankland and Paula Rooney in the “negative” category and Rob Enderle and Barbara Darrow in the “balanced” group. And some have no category, like Dan Lyons. I don’t know if that means that category was unknown or already sewn up or what. I’ll let you be the judge.
Since some people have been accusing us of keeping track of fake/bias/corruptible ‘reporters’ (complainer are typically those whose agenda or bias get exposed there), we shall show that Microsoft does exactly this. Thanks to 3 volunteers, we finally have this full list of journalists, which was worth having in textual form (but whose text was extremely hard to decipher). By Microsoft’s terminology (Waggener Edstrom is Microsoft's PR department), “Balanced” means “with us” and “Negative” means “against us”. Might they have similar lists for politicians?
=> ↺ keeping track of fake/bias/corruptible ‘reporters’ | is Microsoft's PR department | ↺ politicians
“By Microsoft’s terminology (Waggener Edstrom is Microsoft’s PR department), “Balanced” means “with us” and “Negative” means “against us”.”Here is the full exhibit, Exhibit PX04081 (2000) [PDF] and also the text version, which we append at the bottom (there is repetition in the text, which is sensibly omitted).
Notice how John Markoff is also mentioned as an option for Microsoft to ‘plant’ stories (they use the word “planted”). Carla from Linux Today has repeatedly accused him of not letting it be known that issues like Conficker only affect Windows, until recently. Such is the case with The New York Times in general because of the business relationship with Microsoft [1, 2]. █
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 4081 Comes vs. MicrosoftFrom: Doug Miller Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 12:03 PM To: Stephanie Wettstein (Waggener Edstrom); Katrina Busch (Waggener Edstrom); Chuck Humbie (Waggener Edstrom); Steve Aeschbacher (LCA) Cc: David Martin (WINMKTG); Adam Sohn; Vivek Varma; Brian Schuster; Dan Nesult; Dan Crouse (LCA); Tom Burt (LCA); Chris Meyers (LCA); Lisa Tanzi (LCA); Kim Akers (WINDOWS); Tom Phillips; Carl Stork; Mike Porter; Bill Veghte; Brian Valentine; Jim Ewel; Vivek Varma Subject: FW: OSDL PR Plan – attorney client privilegedattorney client privilegedStephanie/Kate/Chuck, please find attached the PR response plan for the anticipated OSDL announcement. As discussed in our PR meeting this morning. David & I have spoken with Maureen O’Gara (based on go ahead from BrianV) and planted the story. She has agreed to not attribute the story to us. WaggEd actions include reviewing the positioning, review the proposed buddy mail, review Q&As, etc.Privileged MaterialRedactedWe expect this to leak later today. At that point we will proactively respond or contact press with our positioning points.OSDL PR Response PlanSituation: Microsoft expects1. The public announcement (8:30 am Wed Aug. 30 2000) of the following structure (referred to as OSDL) that is a consortium between Intel, Redhat, IBM and HP* Independent, limited # of employees, non-profit entity. * Participiting companies contribute equipment and money * Two levels: (i) founders/steering board, big $ contributors, (ii) general members not steer but contribute technology, benefit from “the IP protection”2. OSDL’s operations guidelines will be to delop a set of infrastructure for open source development projects, claim that target is very high end space competing against UE10000.3. OSDL to provide:* IP buffer for the Open Source community — “solving the IP problem of the GPL” — “to get around GPL issues”. * Linux primary beneficiary, other OSS projects could benefit.4. OSDL’s possible goals include:* IP buffer. Ship GPL code unchanged without donating via GPL patents in that code. * Chip demand increase * Converged Linux/GPL code base (required to make available to community) * “Planned” releases, coordination, obvious OSS inertia and royalty savings c.f. Windows * Undifferentiated “subsidy” foundation for their “expensive” proprietary, add-on products * “Industry standard” APIs for add-on products (i) mitigating risk of drawing of value-add products into the GPL, (ii) direct focus of OSS energy towards slowing how much code flows into the GPL to preserve opportunity for expensive add-on products.Objectives:Reduced potential negative PR to Microsoft, reinforce our message that we are here now with customer solutions and question the customer value of this announcement. Actions:Positioning:1. The drive to build the Next Generation Internet is happening now.* Microsoft always welcomes fair competition, as in the end this benefits customers. * Microsoft is in the best position today, to go after this business and solve real customer business problems * Microsoft focuses on customer solutions, rather than “fashion” technologies * We have good relationships with Intel, IBM, HP and others who are having great success solving businessHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL MS-PCA 2599420customer needs today with Windows 2000.2. Bad news for Sun & GPL3. Old UNIX guard attempting to hijack Linux to go after Sun* This will drive a wedge between the original Linux champions who are for “free” software and the established commercial UNIX “old guard” further confusing customers * Old UNIX guard want to adopt the UNIX business model where they provide proprietary differentiation on top of a common base as they realize they can’t add any competitive differentiation under the GPL. * Appears to be business as usual for the fragmented UNIX market and very reminiscent of previous UNIX alliances.4. These types of alliances ultimately do not benefit customers and have historically been prone to failure (OSF all over again for example)* Customers want solutions today and clearly it will take a long time for this new group to produce viable production quality, customer-ready solutions. * Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, himself recently said Linux was 5-10 years behind Windows. * Linux and Open Source are supposed to be all about “free” technology and no one group having competitive advantage. This new alliance seems to go against these principles. * What about HP-UX, IBM AIX and the IA-64 Monterey project? Are these dead? HP and IBM have said in the past that those platforms are what they are using to target the high-end UNIX segment. Tactics:* Confirm Compaq and Dell are not part of this announcement and are informed of Microsoft’s position. Owner: Compaq – jime, Dell adamso * Inform Maureen O’Gara (Senior Editor Client Server News/LinuxGram) or John Markoff (NYT) of announcement on Aug 28, 2000. Owner dougmil (Approval received from BrianV to proceed) * Contact Eric Raymond, Tim O’Reilly or Bruce Perrins to solicit support for this going against the objectives of the Open Source movement. Owner: dougmil [Doug Miller]. Note that I will not be doing this. Maureen O’ Gara said she was going to call them so it looks better coming from her. * Issue “buddy mail” to target press list at the time of the announcement and begin to proactively call-down to editors immediatley after announcement made. Owner: davidmar * Contact analysts (Summit Strategies or Creative Strategies) for their assessment of implications. Owner: davidmarPublication call-down:potential press list only – confirmation required by Waggener Edstrom[Contacts_xls]Buddy Mail:[icon] Old UNIX guard Hijacks LinuxRude Q&A:Q. So what does Microsoft think of this announcement? A. Microsoft welcomes healthy competition but we don’t see how this will benefit customers. Groups like these typically take years to get their act together — for example OSF, the Open Group, iABI, the ACE initiative, the UNIX SVR4 “Destiny” project, etc. Microsoft has solutions for customers today.Q. What does this say about your OEM relationship? A. Microsoft has healthy relationships with IBM, HP, Intel and have they substantial successful businesses based around Windows solutions. I’m sure their commitment to Microsoft technologies will not be affected by this announcement.Q. Is Microsoft developing a version of Office for Linux? A. No, we have not seen volume demand for this in the commercial marketplace.Q.There seems to be a momentum behind Linux based research from IDC and Netcraft A. Netcraft recently revised their methodology to more accurately describe sites actually being used by customers. Windows and Linux have approximately the same number of active sites however the big news is Microsoft technology is running half of the servers that power the Internet. Many of these servers are predominantly deployed within the Fortune 500 and other major businesses around the world. IDC’s recent research highlights the number of HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL MS-PCA 2599421copies of Linux distributed — however given that Linux is free, this by no means represents real-world usage of Linux as a production operating system.Q. Does Microsoft have plans to open source any of it’s products? A. Microsoft have a number of source programs today for customers and developers. We are continually listening to feedback from customers on how best to help them provide great solutions on Windows platforms.Questions for the press to ask OSDL: Q. What about other UNIX offerings (AIX, HP/UX, Monterey) from the participants? Q. How does this play versus all the other announced initiatives (LSB, GNOME Foundation, Trillian, etc…) Q. This sounds like a closed club — we thought the whole point of open source was is open for anyone to join? Q. Isn’t OSDL simply another well-funded Redhat Q. Does this indicate that RedHat’s existing business model is untenable? Q. Did OSDL founders consult Linux Torvald, Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens, et al. re appropriateness and objectives of OSDL formation? Q. What is the corporate structure of OSDL? Who owns it? Who controls it? Will OSDL make the agreements between its founding members public? Q. Can other companies join OSDL and, if so, what types of participation are possible? Q. Would OSDL consent to OSS community oversight? Q. Who will control the work done by OSDL? Will OSDL work be “open” to public inspection, i.e., conducted on the web with unrestricted public access? If not, why not? Q. Who will have ownership of IP relevant to code developed by OSDL? What about code contributed to OSDL? Q. Will all code released by OSDL be released under the GPL? If not, what code will be subject to different terms/conditions, what terms/conditions will apply, and who will decide what code to except from the GPL? Q. How can OSDL avoid the code it releases being subject to the GPL if OSDL is modifying GPL code? Q. Will OSDL provide any representations/warranties/indemnification that code released by OSDL is free from infringements?Doug Miller mailto: [redacted]@microsoft.com Microsoft Corporation / [redacted address, phone, fax, cell/pager number]HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL MS-PCA 2599422
Publication Type Position Disposition First Name Last Name e-mail address [addresses redacted]
ABCNews.com Press Johnathon Dupe
Aberdeen Analyst Joe Clabby
AP Press Cliff Edwards
AP Press Michael Martinez
AP Press Martha Mendoza
Bloomberg Press David Ward
Boston Globe Press Hiawatha Bray
Business Week Press Balanced Mike Moeller
Business Week Press Balanced Dennis Berman
Business Week Press Negative Steve Wildstrom
Business Week Press Jay Greene
Business Week Press Steve Haram
Business Week Press Kathy Rebello
C/Net Press Negative Shankland Stephen
C/Net Press Stephanie Miles
C/Net Review Balanced Jessica Branson
Chicago Tribune Press James Coates
CIO Magazine Press Polly Schneider
CNBC Press Renay San Miguel
Computer Reseller News Press Balanced Barb Darrow
Computer Reseller News Press Negative Paula Rooney
Computer Reseller News Review Balanced John Yacena
Computer Reseller News Review Balanced Eric Eigar
Computer World Press Negative David Orenstein
Computer World Press Senior Writer Dominique Declumyn
Computer World Review Balanced Cynthia Morgan
Computer World Review Balanced Russell Kay
Dallas Morning News Press Jean Nash Johnson
DataQuest Analyst Balanced Chris Le Toq
DataQuest Analyst Balanced Kim Brown
Dow Jones Press Mark Boslet
Dow Jones Press Rick Jergends
Eastside Journal Press Clayton Park
ENT Mag Press Tom Sullivan
ENT Mag Press Brian Ploskina
Fin. Times of London Press Louise Kehoe
Forbes Press Balanced Julie Pitla
Forbes Press Elizabeth Corcoran
Forbes Press Dan Lyons
Forbes Review Negative Steve Manes
Fortune Press Balanced David Kirkpatrick
Fortune Press Negative Jodi Mardesich
Fortune Review Negative Joel Dreyfuss
Gartner Analyst Balanced Joel Barkin
Gartner Analyst Negative George Weiss
Gartner Analyst Kathryn Russell
Gartner Analyst Michael Gartenberg
Giga Analyst Balanced Rob Enderle
Giga Analyst Negative Stacy Quandt
Houston Chronical Press Dwight Silverman
IDC Analyst Balanced Bill Peterson (Went to Turbo Linux)
IDC Analyst Negative Dan Kusnetzky
IDC Analyst Al Gillen
Industry Standard Press Alex Lash
Information Week Press Balanced Rick Whitting
Information Week Press Aaron Ricardela
Information Week Press Stephanie Stahl
Information Week Review Balanced Logan Harbaugh
InfoWorld Press Editorial Director Balanced Ed Scannell
InfoWorld Press Bob Trott
InfoWorld Review Dan Sommer
InfoWorld Review Balanced John Brodrick
InfoWorld Review Balanced Mark Pace
InfoWorld Review Kevin Railsback
Interactive Week Press Charlie Babcock
Internet Week Press Senior Editor Nick Turner
LA Times Press Stanley Holmes
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL MS-PCA 2599423
Meta Analyst Balanced Steve Clayhans
Meta Analyst Doug Lynn (Recommended by Mike Pettyjohn (Netcraft)
Meta Analyst Peter Firstbrook
MSNBC Press Bob Sullivan
MSNBC Press Marty Wolk
Network Computing Review Balanced Art Wittman
Network Computing Review Balanced Fritz Nelson
Network Computing Review Sr. Tech. Editor Ron Anderson
Network Computing Review Contrib. Editor Peter Morrisey
Network World Press Senior Editor John Fontana
Network World Review Balanced Lee Schlesinger
New York Daily News Press Nancy Dillon
New York Times Press Steve Lohr
New York Times Press John Markoff
New York Times Review Negative Pete Lewis
PC Magazine Review Balanced Michael Miller
PC Magazine Review Balanced Steve Rigney
PC Magazine Review Balanced Ben Gottesman
PC Magazine Review Balanced David Lidsky
PC Magazine Review Balanced Steve Buehler
PC Magazine Review Balanced Larry Seltzer Miller
PC Week Press Balanced Scott Berinato
PC Week Review Balanced John Teschek
PC Week Review Balanced Pankaj Chowdhry
PC Week Review Balanced Henry Baltazar
PC Week Press Grant Dubois
PC World Press Harry McCracken
PC World Press Julian Milenbach
PC World Press Scott Spanbauer
Reuters Press Dick Satran
Reuters Press Chris Stetkiewicz
San Diego Unuin Tribune Press Mike Drummond
San Francisco Chronicle Press Benny Evangelista
San Francisco Examiner Press Al Saracevic
San Jose Mercury News Press Cecilia Kang
Seattle PI Press Dan Richman
Seattle Times Press Paul Andrews
Sm@rt Reseller Press Mary Jo Foley
Small Bus. Tech. Report Press Ramon Ray
Tacoma News Tribune Press Christine Carson
TechWeb Press Software Editor Stuart Glascock
Time Review Negative Josh Quittner
US News & World Report Press Susan Gregory Thomas
USA Today Press Deborah Solomon
USA Today Review Bruce Schwartz
Wall Street Journal Press Balanced David Hamilton
Wall Street Journal Press Negative Lee Gomes
Wall Street Journal Press Staff Reporter David Bank
Wall Street Journal Review Negative Walt Mossberg
Washington Post Press David Streitfeld
Windows NT Magazine Review David Chernicoff
Wired Press John Gartner
Wired Press Chris Jones
Wired Press Chris Oakes
Yankee Group Analyst Eric Klein
ZD AnchorDesk Press Jesse Berst
ZD AnchorDesk Press Liz Enbysk
ZDNet Press Lisa Bowman
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL MS-PCA 2599424Subject: Old Guard UNIX hijacks Linux Editor: No doubt you have already heard the announcement of the latest Linux consortium (ODL) between Intel, Red Hat, IBM, and HP.The purpose of this email is to give you Microsoft’s perspective on ODL:1. The drive to build the Next Generation Internet is happening now * Microsoft is in the best position today, to go after this business and solve real customer business problems * Microsoft focuses on customer solutions, rather than “fashion” technologies * Microsoft welcomes fair competition as in the end this benefits customers * We have excellent relationships with Intel, IBM, HP and others who are having great success solving business customer needs today with Windows 2000. 2. Bad news for Sun & GPL 3. Old UNIX guard attempting to hijack Linux to go after Sun * This will drive a wedge between the original Linux champions who are for “free” software and the established commercial UNIX “old guard” further confusing customers * Old UNIX guard want to adopt the UNIX business model where they provide proprietary differentiation on top of a common base as they realize they can’t add any competitive differentiation under the GPL * Almost business as usual for the fragmented UNIX market and very reminiscent of previous UNIX alliances. 4. The consortiums ultimately do not benefit customers and have historically been prone to failure (OSF all over again for example) * Customer want solutions today not have to wait for protagonists, politics and glacial inefficiencies * Linus himself recently said Linux was 5-10 years behind Windows. * Linux and Open Source are supposed to be all about free technology and no one group having competitive advantage * What about HP-UX, IBM AIX and the IA-64 Monterey Project? Are these now dead? HP and IBM have said in the past that those platforms are what they are using to target the high end UNIX segment.Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to speak with a Microsoft spokesperson. I would be happy to arrange this.Best Regards,MS-PCA 2599425 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Credit: wallclimber and 2 more anonymous volunteers
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend
=> Techrights
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
text/gemini;lang=en-GBThis content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).