Devil's Advocate: Microsoft, Fair Trade and justice

Philosophy and technology

By Martin Brampton, 18 January 2005 07:00

COMMENT Microsoft's actions around software licensing rarely fail to create a stir in the industry or among users. But are there any simple answers to the problems it faces? Martin Brampton doesn't think so…

Microsoft is aiming for the moral high ground. It commissioned a survey from YouGov to find out about people's attitudes to the ethics of buying decisions. Oh, and it also asked about use of pirated software.

A substantial majority of consumers certainly believe that ethics come into their choices. A large number are prepared to pay a bit extra for Fair Trade products that offer better returns to growers. Those surveyed also gave majority support for communal action such as an improved health service.

But Microsoft was disappointed to find half the sample owned goods they knew to be counterfeit. Even closer to Microsoft's heart, nearly a quarter of those surveyed admitted to owning pirated software. Whether they were asked to give their names and addresses is not disclosed.

Donning its Robin Hood outfit, Microsoft commented that a mere ten per cent reduction in UK piracy would raise £2.5 billion of additional tax revenue. This figure does seem rather suspect, since it would imply that pirated Microsoft software has a value equivalent to around a quarter of the entire private sector of the economy.

The research also showed that 75 per cent thought that ideas belonged to the people who created them. Most would be highly aggrieved if their own ideas were stolen. Microsoft sees this as evidence of hypocrisy among the survey sample.

Yet ethics is dangerous territory, especially for the unwary. It might be that the people consulted in the survey actually have a conception of justice that makes their answers perfectly consistent. The support for Fair Trade suggests that many people believe that justice is a consideration that can override the simple desire to buy goods at the lowest possible price.

Companies, in the contemporary world, often seem to take quite the opposite view. For example, the banks are now under fire for their practice of hard selling repayment protection insurance. They have been inclined to sell this even when the exclusions in the cover mean that the insurance is worthless to the customer. Justice seems to lag behind profit.

And in its relations with rival software companies, Microsoft has often been on the receiving end of claims of misuse of intellectual property. Mostly, these disputes are eventually settled out of court, leaving Microsoft able to claim that it has not been found to have done anything wrong. The Stac Electronics case was unusual, with the court finding Microsoft guilty of patent infringement, although Microsoft denied this.

Top Microsoft executives have talked about "playing hardball" in relation to competitors. What exactly are we to make of that? It seems to refer to tactics that do damage to rivals in ways that many people would see as unfair. Given the number of law suits, one might think that it also involves actions that breach the rights of others in civil law.

Law is complex, though. Software companies that talk about piracy usually mean anything that is in breach of the licence. One problem with this is that typical software licences contain many detailed clauses and the customer has no option to negotiate. Moreover, they may conflict with unfair contract legislation. Until a contract is tested in court it is impossible to say for sure, and most have never been tested.

Without it being any justification for breaches of law, most people also believe that Microsoft would prefer people to use illegal copies of its software than use something else. It is the apparent ubiquity of Microsoft's software that is a powerful force in sustaining the company's market position. Indeed, it is unclear whether Microsoft is actually making significant efforts to halt so-called piracy in emerging markets.

So perhaps all the survey shows is that most people have a sense of justice. Maybe a significant proportion of them believe that using pirated software is just “playing hardball” with Microsoft. Is there really a double standard somewhere in this?

Comments

There are 6 comments. Join the discussion

  1. 1. Gandalf

    Yes people have a sense of justice, the oft used phrase 'treat people as you find them' comes to mind. Microsoft has been found guilty of breaking laws, even falsifying evidence in court (eg the anti-trust video) and despite being sanctioned has not reformed and become a good citizen. It is no wonder then that people cheat Microsoft as they have constantly cheated people.

  2. 2. Mark SPLINTER

    pirated copies are not equal to lost revenue, only in accountant's wet dreams. If Windows was harder to pirate, people would use linux, and bill knows it.

  3. 3. Keefieboy

    This is brilliant - Microsoft asking about the ethics of buying decisions! Yow, well of course we bought Windows because a) what else is there, and b) the vendor has pre-installed it on the machine.

    Or maybe I'm misreading the article, and Microsoft actually want to know why everybody hates them - As if.

  4. 4. anonymous

    Mark is right! People use pirate software because it's free - if there was no source of pirated Windows, the majority of these same people would look around for something else that was free, rather than just say "Oh well, of course I'll buy the full price version". So therefore MS are NOT loosing the amount of revenue that they claim - if anything they are benefiting because people are using their software, and no-one else's - they haven't lost market share to anyone else.

  5. 5. Mike Grello

    Another possible explaination for the apparent disparity between ethical social behavour and possessing "illegal" software is the moral threshold of the respondent. For example, if you bought an educational copy of Microsoft Office while at college, because the instructor required it, but still use it many years later, though you are out of college; with a more highly developed sense of morality you might suspect you are doing something vaguely wrong. Or, if you bought an OEM copy of Windows XP with some hardware from a mail order vendor and then decided to put it on a different machine, you may have technically violated the license. These may be the sort of thing that wouldn't bother a person who is willing to exploit Juan Valdeze, while preying on the conscience of someone with a higher sense of ethics.

  6. 6. SmartITGuy

    Given Microsoft's predatory, monopolistic tendencies, they have
    NO right whatsoever - speaking about morals ethics, or hypocracy.

    If Microsoft wants a fair equitable customer base, then don't make
    Windows 25% the cost of a computer purchase!
    And don't punish those who ARE buying your stuff legitimately
    with higher prices to compensate for the piracy.

    Windows or "ANY" Operating System should not ever
    cost more than 5% the cost of the system!

    The computing experience is NOT all about Windows, it's about the
    software you USE in Windows.

Post your comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

Log in or create your silicon.com account below

Will not be displayed with your comment

By signing up for this service, you indicate that you agree to our Terms and Conditions and have read and understood our Privacy Policy.

Questions about membership? Find the answers in the Membership FAQ