[Am-info] query about MS "Innovations"

[Erick Andrews]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:02:52 -0800, Mitch Stone wrote:

>
>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. 

I don't doubt that at all.  Is there a "best" of pronouncements that can be
pointed to here?  If there was one explicably so, from Dubya's mouth or pen,
I'd like to reference it.

>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.

But Teedy [sic] Roosevelt did carry on against the monopolist barons of
the day, right?

-- 
Erick Andrews