[Am-info] State AGs sabotaging Microsoft settlement

[Ah Pook]

>From: Mark Hinds <zoro980@home.com>
>To: am-info <am-info@venice.essential.org>
>Subject: [Am-info] State AGs sabotaging Microsoft settlement
>
>Very puke-like article:
>
>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/11/08/ED148465.DTL

------- Start of forwarded message -------
From: Ah Pook <ahpook@telus.net>
To: chronfeedback@sfchronicle.com
Subject: RE: State AGs sabotaging Microsoft settlement
Date: 11/9/2001 10:23:18 AM

"Just why the attorneys general are once more bucking efforts by the Justice Department and nine states to move on is 
anyone's guess."

	Hmm, maybe because the deal doesn't actually achieve anything?  Sally Pipes is president of a think tank, 
and can't figure that one out?  I don't think I've ever seen an article discredit itself so quickly.

"What is clear enough, though, is that it will not serve anyone's interest -- except perhaps, Microsoft's commercial rivals"

	Which are, exactly, who?  Convicted monopoly status not mean anything?  Microsoft doesn't have any 
serious commercial rivals because of what they've done.  This case was supposed to remedy that.

"The state attorneys general claim the high ground as defenders of consumers, but it is hard to see what consumers of 
software would gain in prolonging this legal agony."

	It's not hard to see at all, if you look.  Maybe we would gain the option of not paying for Windows on *every* 
new system, regardless of whether or not we'll run it.  Maybe we would open up networking to really allow other systems 
to work with Windows.  Maybe we would get access to file formats, so other programs can be used to view Windows 
documents.  Ever try and open a Word2000 document in Word97?  Do you think that's the way it should be?  Is that 
"progress?"

"While the shock of a setback might not be as large this time around, the last thing investors need in this economic 
climate is another source of uncertainty."

	Excellent argument.  Let's not prosecute because people are worried about the economy.  Consider this: 
MICROSOFT BROKE THE LAW.  They should be punished, no?  Should we avoid locking up criminals for the time 
being because that will take them out of the workforce?  Thanks for providing me such wonderful investment advice.

"By its own estimate, the California attorney general's office has already put in 4,422 hours of work into the case, 
costing taxpayers $1.4 million. That is too much to spend at a time when the state's government is so cash-starved that 
it has announced that it is raising the sales tax."

	Congratulations, that's the first sensible thing you've said in this article.  So why are taxpayers paying legal 
fees for a company that was found guilty?  Microsoft has 20 billion dollars in CASH.  They can't be held financially 
responsible for the case?  Or would that create uncertainty in this economic climate?  That would be the last thing we 
need.

"As Judge Posner complained, the state attorneys general 'are subject to influence by interest groups that may 
represent a potential antitrust defendant's competitors.'"

	...which would never happen at the federal level, right?  Gee, who contributed to both Democrat AND 
Republican campaigns?  Microsoft thanked the heavens the day Bush was appointed.  This result is not entirely 
unexpected.  Disgusting, yes, but not unexpected.

"California is the state that depends most on the speedy recovery of high-technology industries."

	Wow, right again!  Twice in the same article!  So what does California benefit from a company based in 
Washington?  Microsoft is not the only high-technology company; it's foolish to think they can save the industry 
singlehandedly, especially when they're so bent on dominating it to the destruction of any others.

"And that recovery surely depends, in part, on letting important American companies such as Microsoft get back to 
doing what they do best: innovating, not litigating."

	Aww, and you were doing so well.  Microsoft is the ultimate litigation company.  They get off time and time 
again, even after multiple convictions.  If you think their legal team is not one of the best, you're delusional.  As for 
innovation, I'm not even going to touch that.  They couldn't innovate their way out of a wet paper bag.

	Sorry Sally, better luck next time.  Let's see, you fail on technology issues, wrong on legal issues, and 
confused about what taxpayers want.  I'm just sorry I read that sorry excuse for an opinion.  Better go reboot, I hear your 
Bluescreen calling.

	Regards,

	Ah Pook
	///
-------- End of forwarded message --------

:-P