Mr. Microsoft goes to Congress: Technology becomes political

Over the past few years, the technology industry has discovered that those pesky bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. actually wield a lot of power. Microsoft, in particular, learned years ago that a little money goes a long way to stave off antitrust lawyers, as suggested by The New York Times.

It's therefore not surprising to see Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and others actively lobbying Congress for a wide variety of things, including H1-B visa expansion, Net neutrality, etc.

What is perhaps surprising is how much Microsoft is outspending its rivals, as The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports.

Indeed, as the Associated Press notes, Microsoft's "tab of almost $2 million for the third quarter alone nearly equaled the amount its rival Google Inc. spent in the first nine months of the year."

There are good reasons for this: Microsoft has spent quite a bit of time (and, apparently, money) this year trying to convince Congress to put the kibosh on the Google-Yahoo advertising deal, as reported in The New York Times, and ultimately succeeding. Last week Google abandoned the deal in the face of an antitrust fight, one no doubt founded in part on Microsoft's lobbying cash. Microsoft learned the hard way that money can make Washington, D.C. work for it...with just a few million dollars' worth of influence.

Gone are the days of two entrepreneurs in a garage, changing the world. As technology becomes a critical part of the global economy, lobbying and lawyers have become de rigueur. This year Microsoft is the big spender on Capitol Hill, but as Google comes under fire for privacy and other concerns, it will no doubt be next.

[softwaredesignengineer]

Title should actually be "Mr. Microsoft, Mr. Google and Mr. Yahoo goes to Congress: Technology becomes political"

oh wait, I forgot!!! this is an anti-Microsoft blog!

[Matt Asay]

Yes, you forgot. Remember next time!

But Microsoft had more of the story, as it's outspending the others by quite a bit. Perhaps you missed that part. Regardless, you can go back a few posts and see pro-Microsoft things. I guess you're seeing what you're looking for.

[TimBowden]

If you accept the proposition that time are changing, and that one of the significant forces driving those changes is FOSS, then it becomes interesting to watch the artifacts of that change. This includes the wins and losses of those driving the changes, as well as those who's methods, practices and philosophies are in contrast to the forces of change.

Matt is highlighting both sides of this. Is he unbiased? No! He's very biased on favour of the forces of change. Does he present a 'balanced' view (whatever that may be)? No! He presents those artifacts of change he sees. This obviously is from his vantage point only, and does not represent the entire landscape of change by any means.

Does he always call it right? No! Sometimes he calls things that turn out to be insignificant in the bigger picture. I'm sure sometimes he misses things that go right under his nose without at all recognising the significance of them. Sometimes he mis-interprets things and comes up with the wrong end of the stick. And sometimes he gets it spot on, perhaps to the annoyance of those who didn't see his insights or who disagree with those insights.

Does all that make his observations invalid? No, not at all. Even when he gets it wrong, it's still food for thought. If you only read (or think about) those things you already agree with then you end up living in a very shallow mental pool. To use one (mixed?) metaphor too many, you'll get taken by surprise when the winds of change which have been building out of sight suddenly hit you at gale force.

Matt's observations are from the pov of one of the significant open source business players. By that measure, his observations have value even when they may be the result of faulty analysis or facts, as it gives insight to how significant parts of the open source business community are thinking.