Amen.

When I was in business school, a particular student defended Microsoft's monopolistic practices vociferously, as if it was ethical and legal. As if they were good competition! The professor eventually stopped arguing with her because there was no changing her mind. Somehow, society is teaching some that there are no ethical or moral rules and it is everyone for himself, as if we are back in the days of the robber barons. America has become fractured into 300 million pieces, each fighting for their own, rather then working together to build a sum that is more valuable than the parts.

This generation also seems to put up with being lied to repeatedly and thoroughly. People seem to accept it as a feature of the system that can not be avoided. No one in senior management should be allowed to get away with approving unethical and criminal behavior and then lying about it publically. If they are willing to do that, they are willing to screw shareholders and employees. Guaranteed. I think that when hard times come, and they always have, honesty and integrity will be more highly prized. At least I hope so. Basic fairness is essential to the capitalistic system.

moab,

Indeed there should be "ethical or moral rules" that are hard, fast, defined, universal and absolute. But the question which then follows is, who sets the rules and on what premise are said rules based? I did my share of defending MS back in the day on a computer forum filled with well-educated computer geeks, many of who worked in IT and some who were absolute in their opinions as to the lack of business ethics by Microsofts. All the time proclaiming their objectivity, while taking a check from Apple, Oracle, Netscape, AOL, the DOJ and a host of others whose monetary well-being was determined by how much MS could be brought down.

So indeed, let us stand atop our soapbox and proclaim our staunchest and strongest desires to instill, enforce (and more importantly inculcate) tough, rigorous and well defined moral and ethical standards. Just make sure when you do so, you leave YOUR bias at the door.

Double and triple Amen.

Basic fairness should also be a cornerstone of a democracy. But when I see that the Congress refuses to take any responsability since 6 years, refuses to reign in an administration which brakes international law on a regular basis, a Congress which doesn't live up to its constitutional duty to oversee and control the government, then I'm not surprised to see this practice beeing copied in the world of business and universities. The fish stinks from the head...

In the begining he (HP CEO) said he did not know about it or not involved. When more info came out, his answer was "I did not read the report" (and he is an operations guy). There is a new strategy : if you do anything unethical and get caught, just admit it (as if there is a choice) and suddenly you are "courageous", "hero" etc.. Most amusing thing was that stock went up after his testimony. Why would he do anything different in the future ?
I was listening to an author on CSPAN and one of his concerns with democracy was "corruption of language" e.g. pre-texting, option backdating, mutual fund timing, death tax, restructuring etc.

Who comes up with these words - like "pretexting"? It's a polite way of saying "lying" or "stealing identity".

Such words come out of the blue, and then are all over the media - with nary a definition.

It's like "market timing", accounting "irregularities", "underfunding" pensions or "under-reserving" an insurance operation ...

"Technical" subjects ALL - (no ethics or morality or illegality involved!)

These terms soothe and smooth audience perception of the screw-ups, immorality, and crimes of the powerful, while the little people are said to "rob" and "steal" and "murder".

The little people get sent to prision for years just for possessing a few grams of personal-use marijuana!

While Martha Stewart is ALL over the TV again, a bigger celebrity than ever!

JB -

I don't understand your accusation of bias. I was merely mentioning an anecdote of the refusal by someone to admit any ethical breach. Just because I MS was the subject does not mean I pick on them exclusively, though they are a monopoly and their competitors are not.

And there are no hard and fast moral and ethical rules, just like there are no hard and fast accounting rules. The letter of the law is often obeyed but the spirit violated. There are, however, hard and fast principles: fairness, free-speech, the rule of law, basic human equality. These are the only things that can be instilled in people. Peoples ethics come from their values.

The corruption of language is something I've noticed too, and it is having a very corrosive effect in the US. People talk about option backdating and mutual fund timing, rather than stealing from shareholders, in an effort to obscure the truth. Orwell has much to say about the degradation of language and whose purposes it serves.

"when asked if he believed it would be legal for somebody to get access to his personal phone records on the basis of so-called "white" lies: "At the time I thought it was appropriate... in hindsight, I wouldn't have done it."

When the CEO of a company DOES NOT stand totally against lying, the integrity of the entire company is at stake and the consequences ultimately affect the entire company.

Once you start down the path of using a "white lie" in the name of accomplishing something good, when do you start using "full lies"? What is the difference?

After reading his response to the committee.. Hurd should go. For the board not to do so contaminates the entire company.

Integrity flows from the top.

An organizaton may have some stumbles along the way, but it's how they handle unethical & lack of integrity issues that determine its culture. CEO leadership is critical in setting this course.

moab,

Your post makes the assumption that all the accusations against MS are true and only the blind, stupid, biased and ignorant would claim otherwise. IMO, those traits run strong and deep on both sides of the issue. So before we start making personal observations that we claim to be fact, one should state the operating premise of their analysis. I found most of the core arguments against MS to be flawed, biased and of a given ideological bent. let's start with "monopoly", are you using the word in it's classical economic sense (orginal definition) or it's modern legal definition?

I debated this with a DOJ lawyer back in 2001, if interested, you can read it here:

http://tinyurl.com/agtcl

JB - me

Santilli - is the DOJ lawyer (he arrives on page 4, he surrenders on page 5) and yes we had debated this before

Paul Hill - worked at the time for MS

Venture - wrote printers drivers for HP (IIRC)

Man With No Head - was an Oracle guy (again, IIRC)

I dropped out of the discussion on Sept 11 for obvious reasons.

MS, the villian of the ninties.
WalMart, the current villian of choice.
For the next decade? My guess is Newmont, Goldcorp or some other gold mining company.

I listened to the testimony live all day. Never watch CNBC.

My view as a former technology analyst, very familiar with HP:

Patricia Dunn was defiant and evasive.

On the other hand, Mark Hurd, admitted he should have caught it.
Keep in mind that MH was relatively new in the HP organization, which was stacked with original Silicon Valley types who had well-established connections, turfs, culture, egos etc.
MH initally focussed on what was important to HP -
organizational and financial issues. Besides, the Chairwoman of the Board took responsibility for the "leak probe" (did not admit it tho). If I was MH, I would have done the same . . worked on the bigger, higher priorities first . . delegate as much as you can.
I came away from the hearings giving MH full marks. Brilliantly handled the whole session. He took charge, said "I am responsible", "I slipped", "I will fix it".

What more do you want ?

I am very familiar with hi-level politics, turf wars, egos etc at a very large US bank.

mano

JB -

I am not assuming all the accusations against MS are true, nor do I have a bias. I am, however, relying on court rulings. Microsoft was convicted of monopolistic practices. The appeals court altered the decision but upheld parts of the monopolization ruling. The Bush administration sought a lesser antitrust penalty that the Clinton DOJ asked for. Are those not the facts? Did the EU not rule against Microsoft in another antitrust case, fining them a record 1/2 a billing euros?

MS was found guilty of antitrust practices in two different jurisdictions but I can not use the term monopoly to describe them at the time? Talk about redefining words...