In the comments to my post yesterday on the Apple versus Wiley dustup, several commenters asked why I haven’t said anything about the controversy over Microsoft dropping support for the anti-discrimination bill in Washington State. The full version of this post contains my thoughts on this issue. If you’re here to read about Longhorn or Windows and you prefer to avoid political discussion, you might want to stop reading now.
Still here? Good.
Michael Herzfeld writes:
Ed, I love your blog and totally agree with you here, but…As a gay Microsoft employee, I’m a little stumped as to why you have chosen to chime in on an Apple social issue such as this one, but haven’t said a word about the ongoing gay rights fiasco within Microsoft. Or did I miss a post?
Steve Caruso adds:
I have to say that I agree with the one of the prior posters in asking why no large-scale outrage over Microsoft’s retreat on Washington state’s addition of sexual orientation to it’s discrimination laws. As a non-Washington resident, I just happened to come across this bit of news, and while it received some moderate coverage in various tech related news site and blogs, the mainstream press seems to have dropped the ball. How about some outrage at the ultra-conservative minority’s disproportionate influence (in this case via economic threats, real or imagined).
Fair question. I haven’t written about this previously because I didn’t have a lot to add. But since you asked, here’s my opinion:
These issues are not equivalent. Apple’s decision to ban all Wiley titles from its stores is a deliberate attempt to retaliate economically against innocent members of their community for the actions of someone else. I write computer books for a living, so this issue hits close to home. How loud would the screams be if Microsoft had done something like this? What if Bill Gates decided to cut off access to software and information for all authors that are published by Wiley (or Pearson or O’Reilly) because one author who has a title with the same publisher wrote a book they didn’t like? If Jeffrey Young’s book is libelous, file a lawsuit against him. If it’s inaccurate, publish a rebuttal. But don’t punish innocent bystanders. That’s stupid and arrogant.
The Microsoft case is completely different. The company chose to remain neutral this year on a controversial piece of legislation that isn’t related to their core business. It looks like they made that decision based on pressure from a fundamentalist church that threatened a boycott of Microsoft products if they stood up publicly for gay rights, Although that decision disappointed a lot of people (including me), it doesn’t affect the way they run their business and it doesn’t change their policies to employees. I know lots of people who work at Microsoft. As an employer, Microsoft does an exemplary job of treating employees with respect and creating a workplace that respects diversity.
Frankly, Microsoft blew it because they caved in to threats from the religious right. That was stupid and cowardly, and they deserve to be criticized for it. I’m even more disappointed by the news that Microsoft has been paying $20,000 a month to Century Strategies, a lobbying firm owned by Ralph Reed, founder of the Christian Coalition and a very well-connected player in Republican politics. The company claims that they hired Reed’s firm to advise them on “trade and competition issues” and didn’t get any advice on social issues. Maybe. But the timing is awfully suspicious.
I’d love to see Microsoft fire Century Strategies. I’d love to see them throw their considerable clout behind laws that expand civil liberties for every American. It would earn them lots of goodwill. I am disappointed but unfortunately not surprised that a giant corporation chose to back down on this issue, and I’m glad that lots of people are criticizing them for this gutless decision. I hope Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer listen to their own employees and represent them with more courage next year when this issue comes up again.
And back to the issue of free speech. Although I disagree with Microsoft’s stand on this issue, I’ll give them credit for allowing employees to publicly debate this issue and disagree with management, with no attempts to censor those views. The proper response to speech you don’t like is more speech, not threats and economic retaliation.
Ed Bott 
Your last paragraph makes an ironic point. Microsoft doesn’t like screenshots released, but then has the openness to allow internal, public disagreement on this issue. Even after reading the blogs, I’m ambivalent about this issue. On the one hand, I abhor discrimination, whether subtle or overt. On the other, my fantasy is that corporations would be neutral on political issues, but active on social ones. The reality is that corporations awash in politics around the globe. I’m sure Microsoft is grateful on whatever level that the current administration essentially dropped the antitrust suits brought under the previous administration. The biggest problem with Microsoft’s behavior is that it empowers the radcons (radical conservatives) to keep trying the same threatening strategies in the next company and the next state, until pretty soon we’re all sitting around watching the latest Mel Gibson movie for the next corporate employee orientation. [sigh.]
Thanks for speaking out Ed!
Zaine: the screen shot issue isn’t about whether we like it or not, it has to do with protecting intellectual property from being cloned before it’s properly protected.