May 21, 2002
2:01 AM Subscribe
A senior Microsoft Corp. executive told a federal court last week that sharing information with competitors could damage national security and even threaten the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. He later acknowledged that some Microsoft code was so flawed it could not be safely disclosed.
Is this a calculated admission, or is Microsoft so completely on the ropes that they'll say anything to keep from being completely dismembered? Doesn't the fact that releasing such a shoddy product that it's a national security risk
mean that Microsoft should be taken to bits in the interest of public safety? If Firestone can't sell unsafe tires, why should Microsoft be able to sell unsafe software?
posted by RylandDotNet (22 comments total)