Politech mailing list archives
FC: Responses to NYTimes article on MS, Independent Institute
From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:40:24 -0400
[The NYT ran a prominent article on Saturday raising questions about the Independent Institute, an ad it placed, and funding from MS. Some of the signers have told me they are very angry that they were not told that MS was involved. Here is some fallout. --DBM]
From: "Donald Boudreaux" <dboudreaux () fee org> To: <declan () well com> Subject: Times on Microsoft Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:07:54 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal Declan, FYI. Don 18 September 1999 Letters to the Editor The New York Times 229 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10036-3959 Dear Editor: I was one of the 240 signers of the newspaper ad, sponsored by The Independent Institute, defending Microsoft from antitrust attack. ("Microsoft Covered Cost of Ads Backing It in Antitrust Suit," Sept. 18, p. A1.) Like the other signers, I, too, was unaware that Microsoft footed the bill for the ad. But why do you imply that the ad is tainted - its message unreliable - because Microsoft paid for the ad? Doesn't the fact that we signers didn't know that Microsoft paid for the ad warrant, rather than call into question, the veracity of the letter? I certainly wasn't paid to sign the ad, and as far as I know no other signer was paid to do so. The fact that we signed it independent of any material interest on our part surely is sufficient evidence that our defense of Microsoft is sincere. Sincerely, Donald J. Boudreaux President, Foundation for Economic Education 30 South Broadway Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533 (914) 591-7230 (O) (914) 591-5322 (H) (914) 591-8910 (f) www.fee.org
From: DACComm () aol com Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by smtp.well.com (8.8.6/8.8.4) with ESMTP id UAA22964 for <DECLAN () well com>; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 20:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DACComm () aol com by imo21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v22.4.) id zSTMa04067 (4458) for <DECLAN () well com>; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 23:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1f98ed75.25170876 () aol com> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 23:48:06 EDT Subject: WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT REMAINS INDEPENDENT To: DECLAN () well com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 X-UIDL: e7bb97f9e3abdece06dc0c1c2ea3fbf6 THE INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE 100 SWAN WAY OAKLAND, CA 9462101428 510/632-1366; 510/568-6040 (FAX) INFO () INDEPENDENT ORG WWW.INDEPENDENT.ORG ______________________________________________________________________ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 19, 1999 Contact: Carl Close, 510-632-1366; Close () independent org Fair Evaluation of Winners, Losers & Microsoft Intentionally Clouded: Independent Institute Remains I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T Oakland, CA - The Independent Institute, a scholarly public-policy think tank in Oakland, California, has been accused in a New York Times article Saturday, September 18, of being secretly funded and its findings compromised by one of its approximately 2,000 members and subscribers, Microsoft. The New York Times reporter Joel Brinkley based his national news story on erroneous Institute documents taken and provided to the paper by "a Microsoft adversary associated with the computer industry who refused to be further identified." The facts remain: * There has been no secret: the Institute has long acknowledged Microsoft as one of its supporters, including specifying its 7-8% level of support at the June 2 news conference for its Open Letter to President Clinton on Antitrust Protectionism - far less than the 20% Brinkley claimed in his article. Microsoft is not the largest contributor to the Institute, and the Institute, located just outside Silicon Valley, has a diverse range of members from businesses, foundations, civic organizations and individuals. * It is indeed true that the Institute never reveals to its research fellows the sources of any funding, for otherwise this might compromise the scholarly process. Furthermore, the results of all Institute research are derived solely from the standards of excellence found in its peer-reviewed science and scholarship. * The Institute organized the Open Letter entirely at its own behest. 240 of the nation's leading economists signed the Letter, which was subsequently placed as ads in The New York Times and The Washington Post. The Open Letter was organized, written, and promoted solely by The Independent Institute, with no input whatsoever by Microsoft. The ads were paid for out of the Institute's general funds. In order to solicit continued annual funding in support of publicity for the Institute's findings, Theroux provided Microsoft with a break-down of costs incurred by the Institute for the ads. Rather than underwriting any such specific expenses, however, Microsoft subsequently renewed its annual general, unrestricted support for publicity for the results of the Institute's findings, including publicity for the Open Letter. * The new Institute book, Winners, Losers & Microsoft, by economists Stan Liebowitz and Steve Margolis, assembles the authors' research findings over the past ten years, predating the Microsoft case, "browser wars," and even the Internet industry itself. * In addition to many other areas, the book draws upon the authors' systematic research of independent software reviews from computer magazines over the past 15 years. * The Wall Street Journal, in its recent review said, "[Liebowitz and Margolis] wrote this book not to serve a paymaster but instead to affect an important policy debate. . . . Henceforth, any judges, economists, pundits or journalists who discuss Microsoft or technology lock-in . . . without first dealing with the Liebowitz-Margolis critique should have their wrists soundly slapped . . ." In addition, The Economist has described the book as "The best single thing to read on this tangle of issues," and Wired has called it the "first systematic look . . . invaluable . . . and the best compilation that anyone has offered so far . . ." * Winners, Losers & Microsoft's analysis and findings are devastating to the government's case against Microsoft and the theories that underlie it. The real story here may be that the article was prompted by "a Microsoft adversary" seeking to kick up enough dust to obscure the issues raised in the Open Letter; to ensure that the book, Winners, Losers & Microsoft, will not receive a fair and visible hearing; and that public debate and the views of policy-makers are not affected by these findings. "We believe that the issues pertaining to the disputes in the Microsoft case are fundamentally important and may well determine the well-being of billions of people as the high-tech industry's future is impacted. Central to the matter is the issue of what is correct and what is fallacious in the dispute over competition, monopoly, antitrust, enterpreneurship, etc.," said David Theroux, Founder and President of the Independent Institute. "As a result, we stand firmly behind the Open Letter, and we welcome any careful analysis of the research, methodology, and findings in Winners, Losers & Microsoft." For further information, contact Carl Close at 510-632-1366, Close () independent org. -30- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe: send a message to majordomo () vorlon mit edu with this text: subscribe politech More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- FC: Responses to NYTimes article on MS, Independent Institute Declan McCullagh (Sep 22)