From: David Thompson
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 11:56 PM
To: webmaster@ercb.com
Subject: Book Reviews
Hi there...
First off I would like to thank you for such a wonderful resource (the Feature Book Reviews section of ERCB) it made life as a student much easier, more rewarding and most importantly more enjoyable.
Secondly I would like to make a suggestion: A section in ERCB for professors, instructors and students of comp sci and related programs that recomends text books that won't be outdated in six months. I hate the fact I buy one book for an introductory course another for an advanced course and still another for my own personal library only to find the third could have served all three requirements. Please help out starving students (future subscribers), out-to-lunch instructors and those wishing to learn on their own and create such a section.
Thanks and keep up the good work,
David Thompson
A great idea, but it needs the participation of domain experts. Any volunteers? -- RD
From: John Cassidy
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 4:53 PM
To: webmaster@ercb.com
Subject: Best book list?
Dear Webmaster:
I've spent an enjoyable evening browsing your book reviews. While doing this a question sprang to mind, is there a list of the best books in particular areas, say for C++, somewhere, perhaps on your website. I couldn't find one. Perhaps this might be useful.
Regards,
John Cassidy
Another great idea, as long as the lists are compiled by domain experts -- otherwise they will end up as useless as the "lists" on Amazon.com. We'll look into it. -- RD
From: J. Robert Latham
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 1:35 PM
To: webmaster@ercb.com
Cc: David J. Theroux
Subject: Letter to the editor
Dear Editor:
[Because you felt it necessary to publish your Editors' Note regarding our book Winners, Losers & Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology, yet failed to return any of my phone calls after you left a message on June 30, 2000, I trust that you will extend to me the courtesy of publishing my reply.]
Given reporter Bill Goldstein's recent story in The New York Times that most best-selling books purchased are never read, I want to especially thank Dr. Dobb's Electronic Review of Computer Books for commissioning not one but two reviews of The Independent Institute's best-selling book Winners, Losers & Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology.
The reviews by Gene Callahan and Jack J. Woehr echo the conclusions of the vast majority of other reviewers: that the work of our research fellows, economics professors Stan Leibowitz and Stephen Margolis in Winners, Losers & Microsoft, resoundingly debunks the urban legend that "bad products backed by the weight of a network of extant distribution relationships drive out technically superior products," also known in economic parlance as "path dependence theory."
As Liebowitz and Margolis discuss in Winners, that urban legend attempts to explain the success of the QWERTY over DVORAK keyboards, VHS over Beta videotape standards, and -- more relevant to recent developments - Microsoft's operating system and software applications over those of its competitors.
One reason why more than 240 respected academics and economists, including Liebowitz and Margolis, were signatories to our Open Letter on Antitrust Protectionism -- which is critical of the antitrust prosecution of Microsoft, Intel and other high-tech firms -- is because the case brought by the federal government and attorneys general of most states relies on this fundamentally flawed "path dependence theory." As Professor Liebowitz and others have pointed out elsewhere, both consumers and the computer industry will be the losers if this case against Microsoft - brought at the behest of its industry rivals -- succeeds.
While we recognize that the keen competition in the computer industry ignites passions all around concerning the Microsoft case, as for Winners, Losers & Microsoft, we could not agree more with John Erickson's recommendation in his "Editors' Note" to "judge it, its argument, and the authors on the merits of the book."
Before doing so, however, Mr. Erickson provides his readers with a great deal of misinformation regarding the circumstances surrounding the Institute's aforementioned Open Letter, even though acknowledging that "the negative media attention surrounding them - should not reflect on the book's content or the authors's [sic] reputation."
To set the record straight, as we have done with the other open letters we have sponsored in the past, the Institute's Open Letter on Antitrust Protectionism was organized, written and promoted entirely on our own initiative.
Furthermore, the Institute - not Microsoft -- paid for the publication of the Open Letter in The New York Times and the Washington Post out of our own general funds. At a news conference held on June 2, 1999, in conjunction with the publication of the Open Letter, the Institute also acknowledged that Microsoft was of our many supporters, and the press reported our disclosure in related stories.
Begun in 1988, our peer-reviewed scholarly research and publications in this area predates the Microsoft case, the "browser wars," and even the Internet industry itself. In fact, our book, Antitrust and Monopoly, was published in 1990, the same year when the first of numerous technical articles by Liebowitz and Margolis were published in major economics journals. As a result, the fact that Microsoft has been a member of The Independent Institute for the past two years has not and could not have altered any aspect of the substance or conclusions of our consistent and indeed independent work, stretching back over the previous ten years.
Since The New York Times story recounted in Mr. Erickson's sidebar, more recent reports in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal suggest that Oracle Corporation, a Microsoft rival, felt so threatened by the Open Letter and the findings in Winners, Losers & Microsoft that it sponsored a smear and disinformation campaign against the Institute, with the assistance of a private investigation firm, Investigative Group International, and public relations agency, Chlopak, Leonard, Schecter & Associates.
Unlike Oracle's investigators and spin managers, however, the Institute has never performed contract research and never will.
We are aware of one signatory to the Open Letter who was quoted as saying that he would not have signed it when a reporter from The New York Times mistakenly informed him that Microsoft paid for its publication. Since that time, however, additional economists have also become signatories.
In his "Editor's Note," Mr. Erickson also purports to speak for Liebowitz and Margolis and their thoughts on the Institute, but neither can recall ever speaking with Mr. Erickson. Understandably, we all would prefer to see Winners, Losers & Microsoft taken seriously rather than targeted in a smear campaign. That Oracle chose to underwrite a smear campaign when it could not effectively refute the findings of Liebowitz and Margolis serves only to underscore the validity of their work.
In addition, when Gene Callahan authored his review many months ago, the Institute and the authors of Winners, Losers & Microsoft were considering using outside publishers. Since that time, the Institute decided to publish Liebowitz and Margolis's work under our own imprint, as we have done with several of our academic publications. Thus, Winners, Losers & Microsoft remains the only academic edition of this material.
Those interested in learning more about the Institute can start by visiting us at our website (http://www.independent.org).
Sincerely,
David J. Theroux
Founder and President
The Independent Institute
J. Robert Latham
Public Affairs Director
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA 94621-1428
510/632-1366 phone
510/568-6040 fax
rlatham@independent.org
www.independent.org