Re: Microsoft Increased Lobbying in '98

[Steve Cohen <stevecoh@mcs.com>]

Eric M. Bennett wrote:

> Mitch Stone wrote:
>
> >The "everybody does it" excuse covers only
> >so many sins, and not this one, in my opinion. The salient fact is that
> >Microsoft is currently facing prosecution for antitrust violations, a
> >process I think is likely to result (some years from now) in efforts to
> >regulate the company. As a matter of common sense we ought track the
> >political movements of this monopolist, and not equate them with the
> >garden-variety political efforts of companies wielding far less economic
> >power. And the truth is, Microsoft may be late to the game (as always),
> >but every indication is they intend to play it with gusto.
>
> To the extent that the bringing of the lawsuit may have been accelerated by
> lobbying from Microsoft competitors, I think Microsoft's spending on
> politics can be excused.  (Note that I'm not certain of the *full* extent
> of the effects of anti-Microsoft lobbying on the lawsuit.  Certainly there
> has been an effect; how much of one, I'm not sure.)
>
> It may be important that Microsoft competitors helped speed up the progress
> of a lawsuit that many people on this list support... but those companies
> did not do it for altruistic reasons.  They did it to protect their own
> selfish interests.  If they were in the altruism business, they might have
> written a big holiday check to the Salvation Army instead.
>
> --
> Eric Bennett (http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/)
> Cornell University, Field of Biochemistry, 377 Olin Chemistry Lab
>
> Piano, n.  A parlor utensil for subduing the impenitent visitor.  It is
> operated by depressing the keys of the machine and the spirits of the
> audience.
> -Ambrose Bierce

I basically agree with you.  Donations to the political process may not pass
the smell test, but they are part of business/politics as usual and this
applies to Microsoft's competitors as well.  As I said before, the person who
may face some consequences is the SC Atty Gen. who might some day be called
upon to explain to the voters why he changed the state's legal position in a
lawsuit after receiving a campaing contribution from a party to that lawsuit.

As for "altruism" that's a straw man.  I've seen no one say that the
contributions of Microsoft's competitors were altruistic in their
contributions and it's obviously not the case.