IP: Microsoft "profoundly dangerous to the rule of law" - Boston Globe

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> From: "Rob Raisch" <info () raisch com>
> To: "Dave Farber" <farber () cis upenn edu>
>
>
> (Dave, I include the last several paragraphs of this Globe staff piece as I
> believe it raises an important issue related to the Microsoft trial: one of
> "techno-libertarian dissent...to undermine the authority of the government."
> /rr)
>
> ECONOMIC PRINCIPALS:
> Falsus in omnibus
> By David Warsh, Globe Staff, 6/11/2000
>
> Boston Globe Online -
> http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/163/business/Falsus_in_omnibus%2b.shtml
>
> [snip]
>
> The Microsoft trial has turned into a remarkable contest, one of those
> epochal events whose outcome affects the course of history itself. No longer
> is it simply just a monopoly trial, like that of AT&T 20 years ago. Instead,
> it is civil authority itself that has become the issue.
>
> Bill Gates and his entourage have come to represent a certain kind of
> techno-libertarian dissent that has grown up in the United States since the
> 1970s. During the antitrust investigation in 1995, there was a lot of loose
> talk within the company about moving offshore if the US government ruled
> against them. Microsoft signed a consent decree to end the case, then
> blithely announced to the world the agreement meant nothing.
>
> When the Justice Department moved forcefully against the company for
> violating its earlier agreement, Microsoft stopped at almost nothing in its
> attempt to undermine the authority of the government.
>
> The company flouted the judge's rulings. It made extensive donations to the
> Republican party, then appealed to GOP legislators to cut the Justice
> Department's budget in hopes of crippling its ability to pursue the case. It
> hired lobbyists to pressure presidential candidates. It paid for torrents of
> sponsored research. It invented Orwellian mantras (''This case is about
> Microsoft's right to innovate.'') It stalled at every turn.
>
> How will Microsoft's conduct be thought of in terms of the history of the
> decade? As being profoundly dangerous to the rule of law. The case itself
> ultimately will be determined in the courts, of course. But its
> unprecedented attempt to purchase immunity in the administrative and
> legislative branches of government must be tried in the broader court of
> public opinion.
>
> --
> Rob Raisch - lead analyst @ www.raisch.com
> Muscular Business Intelligence