[Am-info] Comments to AG Spitzer

[Eric M. Bennett]

Apparently too late to have any effect, but I just sent off the 
following to the New York AG's office via their online "comments to 
the AG" form.  It would be nice to have written more detail and to 
have sent it as a letter rather than online, but at the pace things 
are moving I'm probably too late already.



Dear Attorney General Spitzer:

I was disappointed to read numerous reports that New York is leaning towards
accepting the deal negotiated between the US Department of Justice and
Microsoft.  Numerous pieces of commentary in the press, even those not usually
given to criticize Microsoft, have classified the proposed settlement as
particularly soft on Microsoft, especially given the unanimous ruling by the DC
Appeals Court that Microsoft violated the law.  David Coursey of 
Ziff-Davis, for
example, wrote the following in his Monday editorial:

"In the document's 21 pages, I found what seemed like real toughness on the
DOJ's part, only to find it watered down a few paragraphs or pages later. Words
that mean one thing to you and me seem to mean something else in the 
settlement.
Prohibitions that exist in one section seem to be rendered meaningless by
another. The total effect is like a visit to Alice in Wonderland. . . 
.  As someone
generally considered to have been in Microsoft's corner throughout the three
years of this court battle, I find the proposed settlement more than a little
embarrassing."

New York initially took an important role in the case, and it would be
unfortunate to see the Microsoft continues to pretend that it did nothing wrong
despite the unanimous ruling. In particular, the terms of the agreement are too
short.  Microsoft has already dragged this case out several years, and could
undoubtedly do the same to significantly reduce the effective enforcement time
of the five-year consent agreement.  Microsoft should have no right to appoint
members of the oversight committee; to allow this is to allow the fox to guard
the hen house.  As pointed out in a Nov. 5 letter by Ralph Nader to the judge,
(http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html) the oversight
committee's work should be more open to inspection by the public.

In the United Shoe case, the US Supreme Court wrote that "It is the trial
court's duty to prescribe relief which will terminate the illegal monopoly in
violation of 2 of the Sherman Act and ensure that there remain no practices
likely to result in monopolization in the future."  Microsoft's 
history with the
previous consent decree negotiated by the Bingaman Justice Department makes it
clear that Microsoft will obfuscate and litigate instead of abiding by the
spirit of its previous agreements with the government. Given this, the proposed
settlement is too weak and cannot possibly meet the standards set by 
the Supreme
Court.  Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal is thus quite right when he
characterizes the proposed settlement as a "triumph of hope over history". If
New York accepts the current proposal, Attorney General Spitzer will be
legitimizing Microsoft's attitude that it can get away with highway 
robbery and,
when caught, keep its ill-gotten gains while merely offering mild assurances
that it won't commit robbery in the same specific manner again.

I urge the Attorney General to insist on a much tougher settlement.  The
unanimous ruling by the appeals court should be used to send Microsoft a strong
message that its behavior has been absolutely unaccepable.  Finally, must add
that I am disppointed that there has been so little opportunity for public
comment on this settlement, and it appears likely that my comments 
will come too
late to have any effect on my state's decision.

Sincerely,
Eric Bennett
Cornell University, Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Ithaca, NY

--
Eric Bennett / ericb@pobox.com / emb22@cornell.edu
Cornell University, Chemistry & Chemical Biology

Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,
even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.