[Am-info] Billie's propaganda machine in Massachusetts

[John J. Urbaniak]

Isn't ACT a paid Microsoft lobbying group?  If so, why didn't the
article metion that?

John


Erick Andrews wrote:

> The spin doctors are hard at work again.
> See:
> http://www.businesstoday.com/business/business/soft03142002.htm
>
> --
> Erick Andrews
>
> =======================================
> Reilly's plan for Microsoft gets panned:  Group:
> Penalties would backfire on Mass.  , Thursday,
> March 14, 2002
>
> Attorney General Tom Reilly's proposed penalties
> for Microsoft Corp.  (Chart)'s anti-competitive
> behavior could cost the state's software makers
> and consumers more than $3 billion over three
> years, an industry group claimed yesterday.
>
> The Association for Competitive Technology in
> Washington - which has steadfastly supported
> Microsoft in its epic antitrust battle with state
> and federal regulators - claims that software
> developers and buyers would be hurt by penalties
> sought by Reilly and eight other state attorneys
> general.
>
> Most of the $3 billion cost would be born by Bay
> State software firms that produce programs to be
> used with Microsoft's Windows personal computer
> operating system, the group claims.  It argues
> that nearly $800 million in extra costs would come
> out of the pockets of Massachusetts consumers.
>
> The states that refused to go along with a
> proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust
> case will take their proposal to a federal judge
> on Monday.  The states rejected a proposed
> settlement, arguing it was too easy on the
> Redmond, Wash., software giant and failed to
> protect consumers in the future.
>
> The U.S.  Justice Department and a clutch of other
> states proposed the settlement to resolve claims
> that Microsoft regularly used anti-competitive
> practices to protect and extend its monopoly in
> desktop computer operating systems.
>
> Among other things, the states' proposed penalties
> would require Microsoft to sell versions of
> Windows stripped of applications such as Internet
> browsers and messaging systems.
>
> Yesterday, the competitive technology group
> claimed sales of stripped-down versions of Windows
> would force software developers to create many
> different flavors of their own products.
>
> Citing a study released last month by University
> of Texas economist Stan Leibowitz, the group
> claimed the added burden of creating many versions
> of the same application would cost the nation's
> software developers and consumers $80 billion by
> 2005.  The technology group said Massachusetts
> software firms would have to absorb about $2.4
> billion of those costs, while consumers would
> shoulder $778 million in higher software prices.
>
> Reilly defended the proposed sanctions yesterday.
> He said the remedies will "create opportunities
> for innovative software developers, not stymie
> it.''
>
> In his prepared statement, Reilly noted that the
> nine states "are asking the federal court to order
> remedies that will restore competition in the PC
> operating system market and curb Microsoft's
> unlawful practices.  The free market, not
> Microsoft, should decide the fate of new products
> and emerging technologies.''
>
> As far as Howard Diamond is concened, the proposal
> would be just a glancing blow to Microsoft but
> would cream smaller firms like his Corporate
> Software Inc.
>
> "For most software developers, you are talking
> about dramatically increasing the burden on
> them,'' said Diamond, the chief executive of the
> Norwood company.  Worse, Diamond said, "nothing in
> their proposal does anything for consumers.''
>
> =======================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info