Re: Hatch wants Gates back

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

--- From a message sent by Norm on 7/21/98 3:48 AM ---

>     Again I think you're arguing nits here.  Since given the nature of
>a consent decree usually no plea is entered at all we're left to 'read
>between the lines' and base our deductions on the results of the decree
>and our knowledge of the principle players involved.  Of course I guess
>we could have an esoteric discussion about all the possible motivations
>that *could* come into play while negotiating a consent decree, but why
>waste the time when the nature of the players involved (M$) pretty much
>gives it away.  The fact that I've *NEVER* seen nor have I heard of M$
>conceding *ANYTHING* unless they knew they were guilty as hell and
>could think of no way to avoid it pretty much tells me what I need to
>know.  Is it remotely possible this conclusion is incorrect??  Perhaps,
>but to steal another analogy I'd say I'm convinced way beyond a
>reasonable doubt.

A consent decree looks a lot like a plea bargain to me. Negotiating a 
plea bargain with a prosecutor who rarely brings charges anyway has got 
to imply a pretty fine deal for the offender. Let's face facts: very few 
companies have anything to fear from the DoJ's antitrust division -- 
they'd been packing a styrofoam bat for years away, and the flabby terms 
of the consent decree made them look even more conciliatory. I think this 
is what Judge Sporkin was saying in 1995 -- what's the point of providing 
Microsoft with virtual immunity from further prosecution? The DoJ had 
them beat dead to rights on the CPU tax issue but was afraid to throw the 
book at them.

   Mitch Stone
   Editor, Boycott Microsoft
   http://www.vcnet.com/bms 
 +---
   If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still 
   a foolish thing. --- Anatole France