Microsoft Blames DOJ For Internet Explorer Security Holes
Fake News written by on Wednesday, July 14, 2004
REDMOND, WA -- It's all Janet Reno's fault. That's the executive summary of a press conference held today at the Microsoft campus in response to the growing criticism that Microsoft couldn't design a secure application if Bill Gates' life depended on it.
"The Feds attempted to destroy our freedom to innovate, and now look what's happened," explained Microserf spokesperson Megan Shill. "The court case left us little choice but to bundle Internet Explorer into Windows, a move that was litigation-wise but security-poor. Thanks a lot, Janet Reno and David Boies."
The Microserf continued, "To all of the greedy lawyers that jumped on the bandwagon to file class action lawsuits against us: You should be directing your attention to the Federal government. They have caused more harm through their anti-Capitalism, anti-Adam Smith, anti-prosperity, anti-freedom witch hunt than anybody else."
"So the next time an IE vulnerability allows an ActiveX applet to wipe your hard drive and turn your PC into a repository for child porn, just remember this: Microsoft is not responsible. We wanted to do the right thing. We have very talented programmers. But we had to throw all those good intentions and talent out of the Windows -- pardon the pun -- in order to satisfy the DOJ's warped interpretation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act."
In conclusion, the spokesdroid said, "Laissez-faire Capitalism is the only way to produce safe software. If we allow unchecked regulation of the software industry, the terrorists will win and blow up our children."
After the speech, the floor was opened to some pre-screened questions from pre-screened members of the press.
"The Mozilla browser has experienced far less problems than IE... How can you explain that?" asked a reporter for KFUD-FM, a Clearly Awful Channel radio station.
The answer had already been scripted. "Oh, that's easy. Mozilla is broken -- it doesn't handle ActiveX, it doesn't support the latest DHTML-powered websites, and it is only compatible with exactly one online banking site in the entire world. So Mozilla's alleged security is a moot point. It's like talking about the security of a computer stored in a vault at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean without a power suppy -- sure, it's secure, but you can't do anything with it. So what good is that?"
Another reporter, this time representing KRAP-AM, a Clearly Awful property, asked, "What do you suggest Internet Explorer users do to protect themselves while online?"
"I recommend only visiting websites that sport the Microsoft-approved logo," replied the spokesshill. "Our staff has personally inspected a large variety of websites that ensure that they do not take advantage of any known IE security holes. This might eliminate a portion of the Internet, but there's still plenty of sites that bear the Bill Gates Personal Seal of Approval®(patent pending), such as MSN and Slate.com."
Finally, the spokesweasel had time to field one more question from a reporter for KDUD-AM, the only channel in the region not owned (for now) by Clearly Awful. "What plans does Microsoft have to improve the security of Explorer?"
"Well, we actually have no plans to produce a new version of Internet Explorer -- we already have 99.9% market share for a product that we give away for free, so why should we spend a bunch of money on future development? Our freedom to innovate is a sacred right and means that we do not have to waste time on unprofitable projects, regardless of what critics say."
"Instead," the spokespuppet continued, "We think the best approach is to launch a fundamental redesign of the core Internet protocols to prevent unauthorized usage. We have already deployed a test our next-generation protocol, IPv666, which totally eliminates viruses, spam, exploits, and malware from the Internet. Under this patent-pending system, each and every packet must be pre-approved by a Microsoft employee before routers will accept it."
"If we didn't have the freedom to innovate, this exciting new protocol would not be possible," she concluded. "Users would be doomed to spend the next century fighting a futile battle against malware, while spending less time with their children. But we have a better vision for the future. At Microsoft, we are always thinking about the children."