[Am-info] query about MS "Innovations"

[Mitch Stone]

On Sunday, March 31, 2002, at 01:09 PM, Paul Rickard wrote:

>    Ok, I'll say it. I am disappointed in the Bush administration's
> handling of the Microsoft case. Ideally they would have continued it with
> the same force as before, or more, but that's not what happened. The case
> wasn't well built to begin with, since the problem in question was the
> bundling of a Web browser with an outdated operating system better than
> five years ago now, but it could have been fixed. I don't know why it
> wasn't fixed. But I believe the problem is a lack of knowledge or the
> appointment of people with a lack of knowledge instead of a massive
> conspiracy theory like some here have hinted about.

You are not referring to me, I hope and trust. I'll just reiterate what I'
ve been saying for well over a year now: During the campaign, G.W. Bush 
made his position clear on this issue. He spoke all of the code-words to 
signal his intentions to settle this case in a manner favorable to 
Microsoft, if elected, which is precisely what he's done. You may be 
disappointed, but you should not be surprised. Nobody else is. Frankly, I 
think you'd have to go back to William Howard Taft to find a Republican 
president who was favorable to the enforcement of antitrust laws, and even 
he had pulled back from the commitment of his predecessor.

   Mitch Stone
   mitch@accidentalexpert.com