[Am-info] Tunney Act Public Comments

[Erick Andrews]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002 11:37:53 -0800, echo wrote:

>Two-thirds, an overwhelming majority, of 22000 "substansive" comments 
>opposed the Microsoft-DOJ settlement. What's the spread against the 
>convicted corporate felon on the top-tier filings "characterized as 
>containing a degree of detailed substance"? The silence is deafening.
>
>Because the Tunney Act exists for mass public comment, I find it 
>disturbing that the Department of Justice, the prosecutor with a legal 
>obligation to ensure that Sherman "violation shall be enjoined or 
>otherwise prohibited" (Sherman õ4), would try to cover their asses as 
>well as MSFT's in such an obviously tainted method. Governments that do 
>not respect the will of the speaking public do not last long and any 
>comment, even "I hate Microsoft" if sent in response to the framework of 
>the settlement proposal, is a comment that should affect the DOJ's 
>treatment of Microsoft.  At the same time, it is not the public that is 
>responsible for framing an appropriate settlement that limits 
>Microsoft's ability to monopolize future product types through bundling 
>and standards pollution.
>
>Given that Microsoft has shamelessly attempted to obfuscate the issues 
>and facts at hands by citing the "technical" nature of this case (vs. 
>the real economic nature of this case) it is appropriate that 
>competitors, ie other software developers, are involved in crafting 
>remedy.  The consumer is not protected if the competition does not gain 
>some advantage - in the same way as Microsoft has benefitted from its 
>illegal activity and bundling practices - and instead goes out of 
>business in response to having to wage war with a predatory monopolist 
>using bundling, OEM lockouts, exclusionary contracts, existing 90% 
>marketshare, and proprietary standards as weapons of technological mass 
>destruction.
>
>Neither the public, Microsoft's competitors, or states carry the burden 
>of proof arguing for the passage of this settlement.
>
>I'm looking forward to the DOJ responding to my Tunney Act filing. Given 
>the obvious pro-Microsoft tilt exhibited in their posturing, it is the 
>DOJ's comments that require substantiation.
>

No doubt.  I hope you echoed these remarks under the Tunney Act, your
window of opportunity.

A side note:  a couple of years ago Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly
passed a "Clean Elections Law" in a referendum to limit "soft money"
influence by big corporations.  This law, now enacted, is similar to Sen. 
McCain's recent campaign platform, but is now being challenged by the 
Massachusetts Legislature, led by the Speaker of the House, who is
withholding already appropriated funds for its implementation.  A likely
showdown between "our elected representatives" and the voters will come 
before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in a few weeks.

I mistrust the voters will win.  Is this "democracy"?

It's all become an arrogant sign of the times...this new (business) political
culture.

-- 
Erick Andrews