After Hours

TechRepublic members sound off on "Where do you want to go today, eh?"

In a recent column, Tim Landgrave suggested that Microsoft should consider moving to Canada. Here's what you thought about that idea.


Love it or hate it, people are passionate about Microsoft.

If we needed a reminder, we received one in response to Tim Landgrave’s recent column, “Where do you want to go today, eh?”

Landgrave argued that CIOs could learn a lot from the way the government has handled the Microsoft case. To begin his column, he also suggested that Microsoft should consider moving to Canada to escape the U.S. Department of Justice.

Of course, not everyone agreed with his position, but many of you did. Here is a compilation of some of the comments we received.
We regularly feature comments from readers in our articles. We like to hear from you because your real world experience is valuable and helpful.If there is a topic you’d like to read about on TechRepublic, send us an e-mail. If you want to respond to a particular article, post a comment below.You can also visit our Forum if you want to start a discussion about an issue you’re facing. Whatever method you choose, we want to hear from you.
Yes, you are correct
Several of our members agreed completely with our column. Ardie Wolcott, an IT worker at a community college, wrote: “Bravo! Someone agrees with me. I hope Bill has the chutzpah to move the entire kit-n-kaboodle to Canada.”

Norjac argued that Microsoft would be doing the company and the stockholders an injustice if they don’t move to Canada and pointed the blame at the Clinton administration. “As long as the U.S. is in an interregnum (that is, until our next president is elected) [Gates] has no choice if he wants to escape the harassment he is currently receiving from the wanna-be government in place in Washington.”

Another member, Derek Gabriel, a network analyst with the IT and Help Desk departments for Wichita, KS-based Printing, Inc. had a similar argument: “I would LOVE to see Microsoft move to Canada. … What U.S. law did Microsoft break? Selling too many products? Making too many things that people liked? If that is breaking the law, I would hope every company would move to Canada.”

A part-time teacher at a community college, Paul Dunn took an informal poll among his students in his computer class and found that 25 out of 28 sided with Microsoft. Along those lines, he argued that “skipping across the border would be a victorious decision for MS and the user.”

And Estel Cooper contended that Microsoft’s move to Canada would be “a wonderful idea.”

“We need effective approaches to limit intrusion by Washington DC. Canada is the best way I have heard,” she wrote.

Microsoft is wrong, and so are you
Paul Allan, the network administrator for Child and Family Services in Buffalo, NY, took issue with Microsoft and our column, calling it “a poorly-researched piece of FUD.” “I’m sick and tired of hearing ‘Microsoft didn’t break any laws; they’re being punished for their success,’” he wrote. “Microsoft has been found guilty of using its monopoly power in a predatory manner to exclude competition.”

Quentin Walker, an MIS coordinator in Broad Brook, CT, outlined a laundry list of reported unsavory practices by Microsoft and suggested that Microsoft’s best products came from other businesses. He also took issue with our column. “Most of you ‘journalists’ writing high-tech columns wouldn’t dare write a column with an anti-MS slant,” Walker wrote. “You’re still too scared of the clout they wield—some of it very real—to ever say anything negative about them.”

One reader was offended enough at our column to suggest that the only thing missing was “the tag line [Microsoft Corporate, Redmond, WA]. Perhaps when writing articles such as this, you should 'fess up to Microsoft’s investment in TechRepublic.”

Love it or hate it, people are passionate about Microsoft.

If we needed a reminder, we received one in response to Tim Landgrave’s recent column, “Where do you want to go today, eh?”

Landgrave argued that CIOs could learn a lot from the way the government has handled the Microsoft case. To begin his column, he also suggested that Microsoft should consider moving to Canada to escape the U.S. Department of Justice.

Of course, not everyone agreed with his position, but many of you did. Here is a compilation of some of the comments we received.
We regularly feature comments from readers in our articles. We like to hear from you because your real world experience is valuable and helpful.If there is a topic you’d like to read about on TechRepublic, send us an e-mail. If you want to respond to a particular article, post a comment below.You can also visit our Forum if you want to start a discussion about an issue you’re facing. Whatever method you choose, we want to hear from you.
Yes, you are correct
Several of our members agreed completely with our column. Ardie Wolcott, an IT worker at a community college, wrote: “Bravo! Someone agrees with me. I hope Bill has the chutzpah to move the entire kit-n-kaboodle to Canada.”

Norjac argued that Microsoft would be doing the company and the stockholders an injustice if they don’t move to Canada and pointed the blame at the Clinton administration. “As long as the U.S. is in an interregnum (that is, until our next president is elected) [Gates] has no choice if he wants to escape the harassment he is currently receiving from the wanna-be government in place in Washington.”

Another member, Derek Gabriel, a network analyst with the IT and Help Desk departments for Wichita, KS-based Printing, Inc. had a similar argument: “I would LOVE to see Microsoft move to Canada. … What U.S. law did Microsoft break? Selling too many products? Making too many things that people liked? If that is breaking the law, I would hope every company would move to Canada.”

A part-time teacher at a community college, Paul Dunn took an informal poll among his students in his computer class and found that 25 out of 28 sided with Microsoft. Along those lines, he argued that “skipping across the border would be a victorious decision for MS and the user.”

And Estel Cooper contended that Microsoft’s move to Canada would be “a wonderful idea.”

“We need effective approaches to limit intrusion by Washington DC. Canada is the best way I have heard,” she wrote.

Microsoft is wrong, and so are you
Paul Allan, the network administrator for Child and Family Services in Buffalo, NY, took issue with Microsoft and our column, calling it “a poorly-researched piece of FUD.” “I’m sick and tired of hearing ‘Microsoft didn’t break any laws; they’re being punished for their success,’” he wrote. “Microsoft has been found guilty of using its monopoly power in a predatory manner to exclude competition.”

Quentin Walker, an MIS coordinator in Broad Brook, CT, outlined a laundry list of reported unsavory practices by Microsoft and suggested that Microsoft’s best products came from other businesses. He also took issue with our column. “Most of you ‘journalists’ writing high-tech columns wouldn’t dare write a column with an anti-MS slant,” Walker wrote. “You’re still too scared of the clout they wield—some of it very real—to ever say anything negative about them.”

One reader was offended enough at our column to suggest that the only thing missing was “the tag line [Microsoft Corporate, Redmond, WA]. Perhaps when writing articles such as this, you should 'fess up to Microsoft’s investment in TechRepublic.”

Stop whining, please
TechRepublic member mchilds took issue with the efforts of the government, and the lawsuits filed by 19 states against Microsoft. Our member’s suggestion: “Want to know how to get back at Microsoft? MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT! If Linux is better than Windows, guess what … PEOPLE WILL BUY IT.”

Notes from the north
Several of our Canadian members also responded to our article. Paul Rumford, a network administrator for TNT Canada, Inc., suggested that high taxes and “stifling regulations” would make business difficult for Microsoft if they decided to move.

“If Mr. Landgrave thinks that Microsoft got a raw deal from the American government, he should see what business has to deal with in our country.”

Kevin Anderson, a network administrator at a Canadian furniture company, agreed that Microsoft couldn’t afford to move north because its employees would be taxed more than in the U.S. He argued that Microsoft workers making high salaries would hit the 50 percent tax bracket, forcing Microsoft to double its salaries just to maintain the standard of living.

“I like living here, but you’re crazy to think they could just move,” he wrote. “Even two seconds thought would show that you’ve oversimplified the situation to the point of being absurd.”

For Murray Shostak, director of ACS product engineering at CGS Inc., moving the company to Canada would stem the “brain drain” of Canadian IT workers moving to the U.S.

“You could then add one more successful, internationally-known Canadian high-tech company to the list along with Nortel, Newbridge, Mitel, Perle, CAE, Cognos, Systemhouse, DMR, etc.,” he wrote. “Why not move to the Cayman Islands? There, Billy and his gang can enjoy tax-free, hassle-free living and still distribute his pirated software.”

The devil we know
Several readers conceded that while they’re not always comfortable with Microsoft, they use the company’s products.

“My server runs Linux, but I use Microsoft products on my work console even though there are many things I HATE about them because I don’t yet have the tools I want on the Linux platform,” wrote billmac. “If only Bill had focused less on secrecy and more on superiority (which can come only from competition) he wouldn’t be in the pickle he is in now.”

Another member, zongvang, a systems engineer for GCI Systems, suggested a better solution than breaking up Microsoft would be to regulate the company. “There are things that become natural monopolies because they offer a single platform for everyone. Windows has been that platform for most of us. And Microsoft is a natural monopoly that needs to be regulated.”

Oh, Canada
At least one TechRepublic member saw his own fortunes improving if Microsoft moved: “This would be a plus for the citizens of Canada,” wrote Mike Kamien, an out-of-work computer support worker from Ontario. “Hell, maybe I would become employed in a business that I enjoy.”
Will there be a lengthy appeals process? Will Microsoft move to another country? Will Microsoft “take its medicine?” Send us an e-mail or post a comment below.
Stop whining, please
TechRepublic member mchilds took issue with the efforts of the government, and the lawsuits filed by 19 states against Microsoft. Our member’s suggestion: “Want to know how to get back at Microsoft? MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT! If Linux is better than Windows, guess what … PEOPLE WILL BUY IT.”

Notes from the north
Several of our Canadian members also responded to our article. Paul Rumford, a network administrator for TNT Canada, Inc., suggested that high taxes and “stifling regulations” would make business difficult for Microsoft if they decided to move.

“If Mr. Landgrave thinks that Microsoft got a raw deal from the American government, he should see what business has to deal with in our country.”

Kevin Anderson, a network administrator at a Canadian furniture company, agreed that Microsoft couldn’t afford to move north because its employees would be taxed more than in the U.S. He argued that Microsoft workers making high salaries would hit the 50 percent tax bracket, forcing Microsoft to double its salaries just to maintain the standard of living.

“I like living here, but you’re crazy to think they could just move,” he wrote. “Even two seconds thought would show that you’ve oversimplified the situation to the point of being absurd.”

For Murray Shostak, director of ACS product engineering at CGS Inc., moving the company to Canada would stem the “brain drain” of Canadian IT workers moving to the U.S.

“You could then add one more successful, internationally-known Canadian high-tech company to the list along with Nortel, Newbridge, Mitel, Perle, CAE, Cognos, Systemhouse, DMR, etc.,” he wrote. “Why not move to the Cayman Islands? There, Billy and his gang can enjoy tax-free, hassle-free living and still distribute his pirated software.”

The devil we know
Several readers conceded that while they’re not always comfortable with Microsoft, they use the company’s products.

“My server runs Linux, but I use Microsoft products on my work console even though there are many things I HATE about them because I don’t yet have the tools I want on the Linux platform,” wrote billmac. “If only Bill had focused less on secrecy and more on superiority (which can come only from competition) he wouldn’t be in the pickle he is in now.”

Another member, zongvang, a systems engineer for GCI Systems, suggested a better solution than breaking up Microsoft would be to regulate the company. “There are things that become natural monopolies because they offer a single platform for everyone. Windows has been that platform for most of us. And Microsoft is a natural monopoly that needs to be regulated.”

Oh, Canada
At least one TechRepublic member saw his own fortunes improving if Microsoft moved: “This would be a plus for the citizens of Canada,” wrote Mike Kamien, an out-of-work computer support worker from Ontario. “Hell, maybe I would become employed in a business that I enjoy.”
Will there be a lengthy appeals process? Will Microsoft move to another country? Will Microsoft “take its medicine?” Send us an e-mail or post a comment below.

Editor's Picks

Free Newsletters, In your Inbox