[Am-info] query about MS "Innovations"

[Erick Andrews]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:50:48 -0800, Mitch Stone wrote:

>
>On Sunday, March 31, 2002, at 02:25 PM, Erick Andrews wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>I don't have the original references close at hand, but this is what I 
>wrote in a column published 11/2/00:
>
>   After claiming he would not comment on pending cases, Governor Bush
>   plowed right on to say he prefers "innovation over litigation," and
>   added, "I think that some fundamental questions ought to be asked: Are
>   the customers being harmed and is innovation being stifled?"
>
>   A good question, but one a federal judge has already decided
>   overwhelmingly in the government's favor. Even worse for Bush, his answer
>   is a page torn right out of Microsoft's defense playbook -- and a
>   miserably failed playbook at that. His statement is as a clear signal as
>   one could imagine that a George W. Bush Justice Department would scuttle
>   the government's case against Microsoft.
>
>>> 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?
>
>He was Taft's predecessor. But to correct myself, Taft was even more 
>aggressive in pursuing antitrust cases than was Roosevelt; in fact the two 
>men had quite a falling out over that issue, which led to Roosevelt's 
>third party presidential bid, and the election of Wilson.
>
>
>   Mitch Stone
>   mitch@accidentalexpert.com
>
>

Thanks, I seem to recall you saying that on this list a while back.

Just a point of order in case I didn't rightfully understand your
last paragraph...it was Taft who was Roosevelt's predecessor...not
the other way round, yes?   I mean Taft was assassinated in office
and then Roosevelt became president, IIRC?

-- 
Erick Andrews