[Am-info] State AGs sabotaging Microsoft settlement

[Hans Reiser]

Guys, guys, Microsoft pays for articles to be written.  There is an 
enormous PR business based on spending money to influence the press. 
 Try putting out a press release without a professional pushing the 
press release sometime and see how many newspapers print it.  Some of 
this is based on writing a good enough press release that papers want to 
print it.  Not all of it.

The press is quite poor, and many (not all of them) are eager to make a 
little bit of money....  Try to understand these things....

In Russia, there is less pretense and less indirection attached to 
paying for a story.  It is not different though, just more polite and 
refined in the US.

Hans


Ah Pook wrote:

>>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Am-info mailing list
>Am-info@lists.essential.org
>http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info
>
>