Spotted this on the NOVL thread. ROTFLMAO!!
Message 13840050
EDITORIAL ? June 6, 2000
Janet Reno, Microsoft
customer
It has to be one of the more reluctant
endorsements Microsoft has ever received. Under
questioning from reporters at her weekly briefing last
week, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno
acknowledged that the Justice Department relies
heavily on Microsoft's Windows operating system.
That's the cyber platform from which computer users
launch applications like word processing and
accounting.
The agency's choice in operating systems is an
awkward subject these days because the Justice
Department is suing Microsoft on antitrust grounds,
saying the company illegally blocked competition to
Windows to promote a monopoly. But legal
theorizing is one thing; finding an operating system on
which the agency can rely to construct its case
against Microsoft is something else. Irony of ironies,
Miss Reno defends the use of Windows on pretty
much the same grounds as any customer might: It's
efficient, and it's relatively inexpensive. Not that she
wanted to admit that to a bunch of reporters.
Consider her exchange with journalists Thursday:
REPORTER: Attorney General Reno, excuse me,
if I might return the subject to Microsoft. On April
28th, when the government ? when the Antitrust
Division first proposed the breakup of Microsoft, we
asked Assistant Attorney General Klein if in fact the
U.S. government was one of the mainstays of the
Microsoft monopoly because you know, the FBI has
24,000 [personal computers or PCs] and the
Antitrust Division has 11,000 PCs, the [Immigration
and Naturalization Service] has ? oh, what is it? ?
23,000 PCs, and they all run on Microsoft
Windows. And he said well, that's a matter of
procurement. He couldn't answer that. And so we're
wondering if we could take it to the top with you. Do
you think it's likely in the future that the U.S.
government will be procuring other types of
operating systems apart from Microsoft?
MISS RENO: What we want to do, just aside
from the Microsoft case, so let me answer your
question generally, is in procurement buy the best
equipment possible at the lowest price possible to
benefit the American taxpayers. We think we can do
that more effectively if we have greater competition.
So apparently Microsoft has the best equipment
possible at the lowest price right now. It's nice of
Miss Reno to say so, but the reporter wanted to
know if she would do her part to break up
Microsoft's "monopoly" by buying other operating
systems. The reporter tried again:
REPORTER: Ms. Reno, if I can sneak one more
in, isn't the government's purchase of machines
operating with Windows software tacit admission
that at least for the moment, this is the lowest cost
and best system for government use? I mean, aren't
you tacitly endorsing Microsoft?
MISS RENO: Under ? I don't want to get into a
discussion of the Microsoft case because I think that
should be litigated in court. But let's go to another
case. I don't think that you endorse something by
purchasing it, if that's the only game in town.
REPORTER: There are alternative operating
systems.
MISS RENO: If that's the only game in town in
terms of an effective machine, low price, the lowest
price available. I'll ask [an aide] to give you whatever
you need in terms of procurement policy.
The reporter doesn't need a lecture in
procurement policy. The question is why the Justice
Department continues to use Windows when there
are other operating systems available. Maybe it's
because when it comes to price and effectiveness,
the agency, like consumers, believes Microsoft really
is the only game in town. Why would Miss Reno
want to protect consumers from a system like that by
breaking up the company? |
