Re:Is DOJ Case moot? A proposed OOC settlement.

["Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D." <livezeyg@boystown.org>]

There are those who now argue (in both the federal court and the media) that the
AOL-Netscape deal destroys the case against Microsoft and insures real competition in
the marketplace. Let me review the case to date and explore the "logic" of this
perspective by metaphor.
A man had been beaten within an inch of his life daily for years by the same massively
built bully. The assault, if not the actual battery, continues throughout the lengthy
trial. The victim appears in court day after day, hovering between life and death,
attended only by his medical staff who must fend off the accused's attempts at
sabotaging their efforts. The defense argues successfully in a parallel court that the
victim cannot benefit from "special" medical attention, nor can the Judge be informed
of his medical status as this provides an obviously biased  and prejudicial view of his
injuries. In spite of the removal of all medical support save one IV line and
unregistered nurse, his condition improves. One day in court, it is apparent that the
worst is over and that the victim may actually recover. The nurse is absent and only a
newly hired body guard stands by his side. The defense attorney rises to his feet and
shouts "Your honor! The victim is obviously no longer in danger of permanent injury.
Moreover, he certainly can no longer justify fear of my client, with such an impressive
protector at his side. I demand that all charges be dropped. Further, as it is evident
that the victim has been faking all along, the so-called victim and the court should
issue an apology to my client or we will be forced to file charges of false arrest and
defamation of character. Additionally, as it was the government, as the people's
representative, that prosecuted my client, we request a full refund of all taxes paid
to date. (the defense attorney is signaled by his client, they confer and the attorney
continues) Your honor, my client informs me that the fact that he has paid very little
tax in the past should not limit his compensation. Therefore, he would prefer a
constitutional amendment requiring the use of his products and services by all
government agencies, as well as unlimited 'diplomatic' immunity for him and his agents
in perpetuity." The judge concurs and adds to his statement "in future, all victims
must be certified dead, and remain so, before they level charges against any assailant,
to protect both the courts time and the rights of innocent 900lb gorillas and dogs with
circumstantial foam around their mouths".
To return a bit, but only a bit closer to reality, I suggest that the DOJ press for at
least three concessions from Microsoft, should justice, in any form, prevail. First,
all future statements defending Microsoft's business practices, whether issued by
Microsoft or others, should be accompanied by a highly visible warning statement -
"WARNING: The surgeon general has determined that portions of this product may be
insulting to your intelligence. The degree of insult is proportional to your
intelligence." Secondly, a virtual barfbag should be provided with all such products at
no ACTUAL cost to the consumer. And finally, a retroactive penalty tax for all such
past misinformation should be collected from the ORIGINAL SOURCE, and passed on to the
consumer in CASH, not credits or 'service' equivalents. Thus, if Microsoft paid someone
to issue an "independent" statement of support, then Microsoft pays the tax.  If a
third party produced an independent statement of support, then they should pay DOUBLE.
The resulting redistribution of wealth should insure the success of most injured
parties and quality products, past, present and future.

--
Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.
Auditory Physiology Laboratory
Boys Town National Research Hospital
Omaha, NE 68131  (402) 498-6721
Livezeyg@boystown.org AND glivezey@home.com

"There are lies, damn lies and special prosecutors." GTL 12/7/98 in re: discussions of
gradations of perjury.