Rather than getting into political and philosophical discussions on a stock thread (MSFT), I thought I'd post some quotes about the antitrust trial here:
"Today, we have witnessed the result of the most successful attempt at government regulation of the technology industry through litigation. The high-tech industry has grown by leaps and bounds without business advice from Washington..T .his act of government intrusion will ultimately harm America's front-runner status in the world economy.. The more the government becomes involved in this sector, the more the technology industry will be stifled by onerous regulations.s," ~U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham, R-MI
"The Administration's interest in this case isn't protecting consumers; its only interest lies in establishing a rationale to exert Washington's regulatory reins across the entire high-tech industry. High-tech America has achieved its dominance in the global marketplace precisely because it has been free to innovate and create, without undue influence from Washington. .Markets create competition far faster than governments can. When government chooses winners and losers in an industry, consumers always foot the bill." ~House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-TX
"I'm troubled Judge Jackson's decision may signal the high-tech industry is open to regulation from the courts. The high-tech industry is responsible for producing 30 percent of our economic growth. The high-tech industry should not be burdened by excessive government regulations. That would be a disaster for our economy and millions of working Americans." ~U.S. Rep. Tom Bliley, R-VA, Richmond Times, Nov. 6, 1999
"Steve Case of AOL, who happens to be on the other side of this issue, says that the future of technology will be decided in the political arena rather than the marketplace. If that's true, your computers will not be working as well tomorrow as they are working today. It's going to get played out over time, and I think we're going to have a federal judge that's going to try to run the technology business of the country and maybe we need to decide to start a new agency of our federal government called 'US Department of Microsoft.'" ~U.S. Senator Larry Craig, R-ID
"The court has made its own legalistic judgment that Microsoft should not . have pushed computer users into the Internet age by including a browser into its operating system. The court seems to prefer slower innovation, with more gradual development of technology. I disagree. The robust innovation that has characterized Microsoft and many thousands of American software companies depends upon the ability to 'push the envelope' - to empower consumers with more features and more capability all the time. Microsoft has consistently offered cutting-edge innovation and enhanced productivity to consumers at consistently lower cost. It is unfortunate that any court in the United States would contend that this was harming American consumers." ~U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-WA
"I am not convinced that actions that would result in the breakup of Microsoft are in the interest of the United States economy or American consumers. With information technology, you can have a quantum leap in product development that occurs overnight and that can change the whole definition of a market for information services. What appears to be a very dominant market position by a company provides no guarantees that it will continue indefinitely." ~U.S. Rep. Cal Dooley, D-CA
".the technology of the computer, and what the computer brings to the workplace, is growing so rapidly, so far beyond any kind of government laws, that it's very difficult to know whether a law passed a long time ago is really able to cope with this whole, huge, new multi- dimensional force that's out there. I think the Internet, is opening up a kind of commerce, and a way of doing business which has been atypical and unknown in the United States. So the law has to catch up." ~U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, CNN Late Edition, Nov 7, 1999
"Those who think that the federal government intruding will speed up the process of innovation do not understand the glacial pace of government. The rate of innovation right now, with Microsoft on the world stage, is already so rapid, that by the time this litigation is in its final throes, no one will be able to recognize the industry. Americans believe that Microsoft has been and remains pivotal part of the rapid pace of developing consumer products, and they're right." ~U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-WA
"Microsoft products have greatly benefited consumers. We support Microsoft and expect Microsoft ultimately will prevail in these legal proceedings." ~WA Governor Gary Locke, (D)
Think Tank Scholars/Opinion Leaders
"The findings of fact provide little direct evidence of consumer harm. There is a great deal of discussion about possible future consumer harm from potentially higher prices than exist today. But the court's complaint with current prices is that they are too low. As the findings specifically state, 'Microsoft could be stimulating the growth of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems by keeping the price of Windows low today.' Is this harm to consumers?" ~Boyden Gray, Chairman, Citizens for a Sound Economy
" We hope that these findings will not be the first step in the regulation of the high tech industry. . The marketplace alone has enabled an explosion of new solutions to the needs of consumers and business. Today the technology sector represents 8.4% of our economy and 25% of GDP growth. It is creating high paying jobs and is the engine of growth of our economy. If the resolution of this case has the effect of discouraging innovation in our industry, then we will all suffer." ~Alan P. Hald, CompTIA Public Policy Committee Chairman
"No high-tech company should cheer these findings-because they could easily become the next target of government's mad rush to regulate our most promising industry. Once again we are seeing the unlimited arsenal of government used against a successful company. Every high-tech executive in America should be asking, 'Am I next?'" ~Bruce Josten, United States Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President
"The futile feud between old antitrust law and the new economy just proves that the government lawyers understand neither technology nor economics." ~Alan Reynolds, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Dow Jones, Nov 5
"As far as the Microsoft case is concerned, there was no harm, it has no relevance, and the implications moving forward are dire. It's clear that the federal government is trying to control the free market through the courts." Jonathan Zuck, for Americans for Technology Leadership (ATL)
|
