From "Americans for Technology Leadership":
NEWS FLASH: MICROSOFT CASE IS OVER
April fools.
Unfortunately this is not the case. For the last two weeks, I have been sitting in a courtroom in Washington, DC observing the Microsoft Antitrust Trial. This 4-year-old case has hit a fork in the road and is proceeding on 2 parallel tracks.
Track I is the path chosen by the Department of Justice, a bipartisan group of 9 state attorneys general and Microsoft. In November, they agreed to a settlement that would require Microsoft to change the way it does business and to come into compliance with the antitrust laws.
I am watching Track II, the phase of the trial where 9 Litigating State Attorneys General are trying to convince the judge that their sanctions, which are much more severe, are the way Microsoft should be punished. After 8 days of testimony from the states' witnesses, a very distinct pattern has developed.
So far, it has been a parade of wealthy Microsoft competitors coming into court looking for sanctions against Microsoft that would only benefit their company, at the expense of consumers. Here is what each company wants:
Sun Microsystems: Force Microsoft to distribute Sun's proprietary Java programming language for free even though documents introduced in court show that many of Sun's current customers are dropping Java because of cost and feasibility issues.
Real Networks: They want Microsoft to charge customers extra for versions of Windows that include Microsoft's Windows Media Player while Real gets to give it's version away for free. This sanction is meant to protect Real's dominant market position in multimedia software.
Red Hat: They want to force Microsoft to develop a version of MS Office for their Linux-based operating system because 1) they don't want to spend money to develop their own; 2) the product they currently distribute with their OS, Sun's Star Office is buggy and often crashes.
Gateway: They want Microsoft to give them the same price breaks on Windows as companies who sell 2-5 times as many copies.
Novell: They are trying to play both sides of the fence by offering to help Microsoft out with its legal problems as long as Novell gets business concessions from Microsoft. If this strategy doesn't work, they want the AG's to expand the case to cover server markets, where Novell is a dominant player.
Palm: Instead of developing their own set of developer tools, they want access to the Microsoft developer tools. This way, developers can write software for the Palm OS and Palm can sell more PDA's to big corporations who support the Microsoft developer tools.
It is amazing how bold these companies are in asking for handouts. It will only get worse as companies like AOL Time Warner, SBC and Liberate prepare to take the stand this week. Be sure to stop by the ATL Website to check out Jim's Journal of trial activity.
Many, including taxpayers in these 9 states, have asked why these 9 AG's continue to litigate. Bob Novak gives us his perspective in his April 1, 2002 column.
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
Money driving Microsoft case?
April 1, 2002
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a 60-year-old veteran of 30 years in Democratic politics, was in Washington two weeks ago for the national conference of state attorneys general and dropped by a federal district courtroom for an hour or so. In progress was the latest stage of antitrust proceedings against Microsoft. His interest may have been stimulated by the more than $75,000 in campaign contributions from corporate rivals of the embattled technology giant.
Lockyer was one of nine state attorneys general who dissented from the U.S. Justice Department's agreement to settle the Microsoft case. He was not the only one who visited the Washington courtroom, and not the only one receiving contributions from Microsoft's foes. Contributions to Lockyer are just a little larger, and the consequences greater. University of Texas economist Stan Liebowitz has calculated that Lockyer and his colleagues could cost California's software developers and consumers $80 billion over the next three years.
While Democrats have trouble pinning Enron's campaign contributions to Bush administration policy, it is easier to connect the dots in the Microsoft case. The company's competitors want to continue antitrust litigation, and state legal officers are helping after receiving contributions. It looks like more of a political scandal than Enron.
Lockyer has his eyes on a future bid for governor. Heavily favored for re-election to a second term as attorney general this year, he has raised $5 million so far to make sure. His listed contributions from Microsoft competitors and their law firms, as of last December, totaled $75,500--with $50,000 from Oracle Corp.
Any scandal here is bipartisan. Kansas State Attorney General Carla Stovall, seeking the Republican nomination for governor, is one of the anti-Microsoft nine. Reports as of last December showed she received between $14,000 and $20,000 from Microsoft foes--including Oracle and Sun Microsystems. Those two California-based companies showed extraordinary interest in helping a candidate for governor of Kansas.
Another Republican state attorney general, Utah's Mark Shurtleff, followed the lead of his state's GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch in joining the anti-Microsoft nine. What turns these conservative Republicans into antitrust zealots may be the influence of Novell Inc., a software company headquartered in Provo, Utah. Kenneth Olafson, a prominent Utah Republican, recently described the ''attitude'' of Hatch's office: ''We're protecting Novell, and that's it. We don't care about the facts or what the economy does.''
The symbiotic relationship between state attorneys general and Microsoft's foes is shown in Utah. Shurtleff, serving his first year as attorney general in 2001, waited until 15 minutes before the 11 a.m. deadline Nov. 6 before joining the anti-Microsoft group. But lawyers inherited from his Democratic predecessor long had collaborated with Novell.
In open court last week, Microsoft lawyers revealed an April 2000 e-mail from the Utah attorney general's office to Novell asking help in drafting language in a possible negotiated settlement that would benefit the company's products. Lawyer Wayne Klein asked for ''guidance--preferably without involving too many people seeing this language.''
Another example of how Microsoft's enemies seek to utilize political contributions was disclosed in federal court proceedings. James Barksdale, former head of Netscape and a longtime critic of Microsoft, revealed in a recent deposition that he asked Bush administration science adviser E. Floyd Kvamme for help last year in trying to scuttle a settlement.
Kvamme, according to Barksdale, agreed to talk to California venture capitalist Kevin Compton--a fund-raiser for Attorney General John Ashcroft during his tenure as a U.S. senator from Missouri. Compton wrote Ashcroft last Oct. 25 asking for a meeting. Ashcroft properly turned the letter over to Charles James, the Justice Department's antitrust chief. By the time James responded Dec. 19, the suit was settled.
''I do not meet with third parties to discuss pending enforcement matters,'' Assistant Attorney General James wrote Compton. Would that James' state counterparts were so circumspect. With a taste for political spoils developed by their tobacco triumphs, the state attorneys general are unimpeded by federal regulations or regular oversight. |
