[Am-info] query about MS "Innovations"

[Erick Andrews]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:15:03 -0500 (EST), Erick Andrews wrote:

>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
>


Whoops!  I got it wrong.  Roosevelt succeeded McKinley, and Taft 
succeeded Roosevelt.  I got confused with Harding who became president
in 1921 after Wilson.

-- 
Erick Andrews