I sent the following email to my State's AG.
To The Attorney General of the State of Ohio,
As a registered voter in the state of Ohio, and a fellow republican, I would like to hear your position regarding the Microsoft anti-trust situation.
You have stated in the past that you do not seek harsh penalties against Microsoft. What exactly are you seeking as a remedy to the case?
It is my understanding that seeking harsh penalties is the predominant viewpoint expressed by the DOJ and the more aggressive state AG's. It is my opinion, aside from the DOJ's own agenda, that the states are merely trying to extort from Microsoft structural changes, monetary judgements, and/or political gains. After achieving victory in the tobacco litigation why not aim at other deep pockets, a.k.a. Microsoft?
If these aren't the reasons, then why haven't all 50 states joined in the suite? Also why did the Attorney General of the state of South Carolina withdraw from the case and state "Over the last year, it has become clear that the government's case has been about Internet competitors, not about consumers."
These additional statements made by the Attorney General of South Carolina express my views about the case. I couldn't have stated them better.
"Recent events have proven that the Internet is a segment of our economy where innovation is thriving. The merger of America Online with Netscape and the alliance by those two companies with Sun Microsystems proves that the forces of competition are working. Further government intervention or regulation is unnecessary and, in my judgment, unwise."
"I can no longer justify our continued involvement or the expenditure of state resources on a trial that has been made moot by the actions of the competitive marketplace. The Internet economy is the place where the winners and the losers of this competition will rightfully be decided. "
"In making this decision, I was also influenced by the analysis offered by Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who recently addressed the Microsoft issue. Professor Friedman pointed out that expanding the control exercised by government over the technology industry would mean fewer innovations, higher prices and lower profits. Such a result would damage the economy as well as the interests of consumers. "
"The government's witnesses are either Microsoft's competitors or paid government experts. Consumers have not taken a leading role in this action. That's because there are no monopolies on the Internet."
"Clearly the information technology industry is one of America's - and South Carolina's - great economic success stories. It has achieved its current rate of growth and prosperity without the aid or the interference of government. Competition is alive and well. Surely the Netscape-AOL-Sun deal has proven that beyond all doubt. "
"I am taking this step on behalf of South Carolina because we believe in the free enterprise system. Innovation should be left to entrepreneurs, not to government bureaucrats or to the courts. "
These statements were also made prior to the emergence of the Linux operating system as a real competitor to Microsoft. Also the power of the internet revolution has diminished the dominance of the personal computer.
Isn't it about time that you, as the Attorney General of Ohio, recognize that the true danger of corrupting the free market is government interference.
|
