Re: Microsoft Increased Lobbying in '98

[Doug Masson <dmasson@iquest.net>]

I believe Mr. Cooke was attempting to make
the point that Microsoft is no different than
many others in the computer industry.
Everyone who *is* anyone makes political
contributions. That is how the game is
played.

If this was the point that Mr. Cooke was
attempting to make (and I beg his pardon if
it was not), then he has missed what I took
to be the original point entirely.
Microsoft's sharp increase in political
contributions corresponds pretty dramatically
with Microsoft's legal troubles. 

Stating that big companies contribute to the
political process is relatively bland and
pointless. Certainly these contributions
raise questions about the political process,
but no more so than similar contributions in
other industries and by other companies. What
makes these contributions interesting is the
apparent motive behind them. Of course,
Microsoft is sort of behind the eight-ball on
this one. No matter how pure its motives, a
sharp increase in contributions to lawmakers
at this particular time would apear to have a
nefarious motivation. Perhaps Microsoft is
being wronged by this insinuation. Perhaps
there is a firewall between Microsoft's legal
department and whichever department is in
charge of donations. However, if forced to
place a wager, I would put my money on a
contrary proposition.

Take care,
Doug

John J. Urbaniak wrote:
> 
> Simon Cooke wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hey, if you think that's good, wait till you get a load of this:
> >
> > http://www.crp.org/indivs/name.htm
> 
> So what?  Last time I looked, Sun, Netscape, AOL, etc. are not on trial
> for Antitrust violations.  Microsoft is.
> 
> Sun, Netscape, AOL are not monopolies either.  Microsoft is.
> 
> John