From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:43:54 +0800
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: NYT on IBM GAK
Message-ID: <199610022104.OAA14485@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 08:26 AM 10/2/96 -0700, Lucky Green wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, John Young wrote:
>
>>    The New York Times, October 2, 1996, pp. D1, D8. 
>>    Executives of the International Business Machines 
>>    Corporation said late yesterday that they were still lining 
>>    up the final list of companies in the alliance. Those 
>>    involved will include Digital Equipment and smaller 
>>    data-security companies including RSA Data Security, Cylink 
>>    and Trusted Information Systems. 
>
>We are in deep trouble.
>--Lucky

Wouldn't a letter-writing campaign be in order here?  

How often do these companies get protest letters?  Generally, my experience 
has been that people actually listen to such objections, if for no other 
reason than they are usually so rare.  The moment I first heard of 
"Clipper," I looked up the manufacturer of the "Clipper" microprocessor 
(assuming that there was a connection) and called that company, fully 
prepared to "ream them a new one!"  It turned out that they had nothing to 
do with the chip, etc, appreciated my call, and were entirely sympathetic.  

While that was an uninvolved company, I think it's likely that some 
corporate decisions are based on the assumption that the public won't 
notice.  Give them enough feedback and they'll react.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com