It's hard to understand why you're going to such lengths to defend Microsoft in this case. Hejlsberg and a few other Borlanders received justifiably high bonuses, but the absurdly rich enticements were extended much further down the line.
As an ex-Borlander at the time, I heard all kinds of inside stories about the Microsoft offers. For a compiler engineer, the bonus represented a life-altering financial event that Borland didn't have the resources to match. Many never had their heart in the move to Redmond and left Microsoft after a few years. If you understood how Borland's culture of software craftsmanship compared to the churn of second-rate engineering packaged and sold by Microsoft on a regular basis, it's no surprise that the flight of talent wasn't driven by the dream of working on Microsoft products or exposure to Microsoft's business culture.
On a brighter note, Borland may have lost but silicon valley ultimately won when Google's incredibly fast growth prevented Microsoft from pulling a Borland on Google's search engine team.
I doubt you'll find any authoritative sources on the full extent of the abuse, as the ensuing lawsuit was settled out of court under the typical terms that sequestered the evidence backing Borland's claims and gagged the truth.
However, I agree that not every Borland engineer sat on his or her thumbs; many simply felt under-utilized in the wake of a Microsoft hiring spree that was obviously designed to kill a competitor as opposed to fill open positions. It's no secret that some of those hires were lured from Borland with signing bonuses that reached 7 figures... for compiler engineers.
Shocking, absolutely shocking to read that MBA students would engage in such behavior. One might imagine, with great difficulty of course, that their sole purpose in entering business school was the pursuit of personal and financial gain by any means.
Nice strategy. If a customer doesn't give your products fair consideration, sue them. There's no doubt Google has a very strong cloud product, one that's superior to Microsoft's in certain scenarios. But to start a lawsuit over this seems kind of extreme. Not the strategy of a "don't be evil" company.
This isn't a private company looking to make a software purchase. This is the United States Federal Government. As such, I would expect them to have to give fair consideration to other vendors and their respective technologies rather than defaulting to Microsoft.
I completely agree with your argument for giving fair consideration. But put this aside, customer have the rights to choose their desired platform right? And since this is for government, they should have valid reason with their choice.
I think you'd be surprised how many contractors end up suing the government (or competing parties) in regards to a flubbed bid.
This happens a LOT. The Federal Acquisition Regulations are designed to prevent exactly the sort of thing that Google is suing for (e.g., write bid requirements to functionality, not to products) -- and it is violated all the time.
They government should be sued more often, probably, to keep from violating the rules it sets upon itself.
As entrepreneurs, we need both Conway and the Super Angels. It's time for everyone to get over these unfortunate meetings and forgive the participants. Enough is enough.
Did they do something wrong? Hell yes. But it's been exposed, examined, and discussed. Publicly stoning a group of angels represents the worst kind of mob behavior and reflects poorly on entrepreneurs as an investment class. Let's not forget that wealthy individuals have many different options for investing their money that historically have higher rates of return (i.e. make more money) than investments in startup companies. Many angels invest in startups because it's more fun than profitable. Let's not change that dynamic in spite of ourselves.
At the end of the day, we want angel investing to be the biggest game possible. It's a surplus of angel money that has put entrepreneurs in the driver's seat and made term sheets extremely favorable to founders. Fewer angels in the mix and the scenario can change quickly.
It's time to prove that we're better than a small group of angels who engaged in such unfortunate behavior. It's time to forgive and move on.
You're right, it is terrible for Google's image. The way you give a competitor credibility is through this kind of obvious imitation. Google is sending a clear message that it believes Bing is worth imitating in numerous ways. What's worse, Google is highlighting Bing's strengths- which is unfortunate, as Google is the superior search engine. Bad move.
Half of his rant focuses on Zuck 'stealing' features from other websites and potential competitors. Since when did adding new features that someone else invented become a moral issue? In many industries, that's standard practice. Google didn't exactly invent email. There's no moral standard to apply here.
His other assertions about Zuck screwing over past partners is more troubling.
I wish you would provide another funding route for the old hackers who didn't strike gold in 1999 but who don't have the option to work for next to nothing for a summer (even if we're willing to quit our jobs for the opportunity).
On a brighter note, Borland may have lost but silicon valley ultimately won when Google's incredibly fast growth prevented Microsoft from pulling a Borland on Google's search engine team.