IP: Another take on Microsoft-specific worms from Poor Richard

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>From: Poor Richard
>To: <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>
>given that poor richard is often cast as the contrarian, it falls to him to
>act as microsoft apologist for the esteemed interesting-people list.
>
>poor richard asks that readers give him the benefit of the doubt as a
>neutral party with respect to microsoft.
>
>for example, while poor richard is of a mind to think that microsoft is
>getting a raw deal with respect to its antitrust dealings, he readily
>concedes that microsoft's legal problems are entirely of its own making.
>
>a cynic might observe that had microsoft been spreading its largesse around
>the beltway five years ago, not only would there not be any talk of
>antitrust, but we'd probably have messr. gates' portrait on the five dollar
>bill. instead, poor richard observes that it's all part of the democratic
>experience, and yes, microsoft should have integrated themselves into the
>governing and regulatory aspects of america years ago, just as we expect of
>all our important consitutencies. poor richard has never been a fan of
>unilaterial disarmament (or forgetting to arm oneself to begin with, which,
>combined with a fair amount of hubris, is the root of microsoft's legal
>problems).
>
>with respect to the susceptibility of microsoft products to infection, poor
>richard got quite a laugh when the official microsoft position quoted a
>famous felon ("because that's where the money is"). one might think that the
>lawyers who have so badly mangled the antitrust defense might, at the very
>least, have sent out an inter-office memo to all staff suggesting that no
>one give doj any ideas about a criminal investigation... perhaps such a memo
>was sent, via e-mail, but inadvertantly given a subject of ILOVEYOU.
>
>more to the point: poor richard regrets to inform the offended digerati that
>microsoft is selling products that consumers want to buy. consumers and
>businesses are more concerned about convenience than security. the plain
>fact is that mass audiences prefer day-in and day-out convenience over
>security, and microsoft sells to the mass audience.
>
>microsoft is hardly alone in this behavior. just ask any credit card issuing
>bank or their associations (i.e., VISA or Mastercard). for the truly
>mean-spirited, poor richard suggests that the next time you're at an
>e-commerce conversazione, ask the obligatory VISA or Mastercard guy how much
>fraud occurs, on average, for each card issued in the united states. poor
>richard predicts that, in polite company, this will result in an impolite
>silence.
>
>certainly it is within the technical prowess of the associations to develop
>technologies that are much more secure; however none of these things get
>deployed because consumers won't put up with the added hassle. (for example,
>poor richard has a policy of not allowing sales clerks to take a dna sample
>from the inside of his mouth for identification purchases, regardless of the
>amount of the purchase.)
>
>what poor richard has yet to see from the numerous digerati who pooh-pooh
>microsoft's products is a concrete example as to how security can be
>increased without decreasing convenience. poor richards suspects that
>whoever figures that out should be able to have a very profitable
>negotiation with the man who, in an alternative universe, has his portrait
>on the five dollar bill.
>
>as always, poor richard is happy to be proven wrong...