[Fwd: Re: [Am-info] US warns EU against Microsoft anti-trust moves]

[John Poltorak]

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:58:26PM -0500, Joe Barr wrote:
> 
> There may be monopolies that are good for consumers.  But they are not
> like Microsoft: predatory, unregulated, dishonest.  They are allowed to
> earn a small return on their risk-free enterprise, not to rape and
> pillage and take whatever appeals to them in total disregard of the law.
> 
> A monopoly like Microsoft stifles innovation and chills the industry as
> a whole.  Consumers lose greatly when there is no competition to spur
> real research and development.  And please don't confuse the MS budget
> item labeled R&D as being that.  MS R&D covers theft of IP, industrial
> espionage, recruiting grass roots support in the press, spying on
> customers to see whose record keeping is bad enough to make it worth
> their while to force them to pay up for a second time, and honing the
> lie of the day to give it some kind of a technical truth to perch upon.
> 
> The unregulated MS monopoly produces third rate product - Windows is a
> piece of shit in every release - and charges a premium for it. 
> Consumers do not benefit from a viral incubator or a false sense of
> security.  Consumers do not benefit from a platform where rebooting is
> the most common cure.  Consumers pay out the ass for bug fixes. 
> Consumers cannot get competent technical support.  And they pay for the
> privelege.

If I was an American, I would be truly worried by the comments made by 
Mr James. One assumes that the Anti-trust laws were designed to protect 
the American citizen from unscrupulous corporations, but what we see here 
is someone who is supposedly charged with trying to enforce them, taking 
the side of the proven unscrupulous corporation and actually promoting its 
interests. Next he will be declaring war on Europe should the EU do its 
duty in protecting Europeans by stopping Microsoft's gross abuses and 
fining it heavily.

One thing I found completely staggering is the claim that Microsoft's 
monopoly actually benefits consumers. How does square with the 13M 
Californians who are pursuing a claim against Microsoft? I don't have the 
particulars about this claim, but saw something which alluded to it 
recently. I would be grateful if anyone can provide a pointer to it.
 
> On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 18:42, Roy Bixler wrote:
> > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 03:08:58PM -0400, Erick Andrews wrote:
> > > "Mr James said US courts had established that monopoly leveraging 
> > > actually benefits consumers, who can enjoy better service and consistent
> > > quality."
> > > 
> > > Well excuse me.  I must have missed those decisions by US Courts.
> > > Anyone know which ones and their relevance to this MS case?
> > 
> > Even if you could find such US court decisions, since when does their
> > jurisdiction extend to Europe?  With bombastic rhetoric like
> > "monopolies are good for consumers" (maybe, but what about
> > entrepreneurs and the economy in general?) and "companies that
> > dominate one market are allowed to use that dominance to give them an
> > advantage in adjacent markets" (which, by the way, seems to directly
> > contradict the Sherman Antitrust Act), he expects to find common
> > ground?  It seems they have a different view of antitrust in Europe
> > and I think he will find another of those "cultural differences"
> > waiting for him.  He probably will have a chilly reception to his
> > quaint notion that Europe should be bound by US court decisions too.
> > 
> > > It would appear Mr James would do away with the DOJ's Antitrust
> > > division.
> > 
> > He is definitely trying to dispose of the Microsoft antitrust case as
> > if it had never been filed.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Roy Bixler <rcb@bix.org>
> > A waist is a terrible thing to mind.
> >                 -- Ziggy



-- 
John