To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (23671 ) 11/24/1999 11:39:00 AM From: Daniel Schuh Respond to of 24154
The Posner Effect zdnet.com Meanwhile, old beloved ilk sister Mary Jo Foley has also been following the case, though I read her more for entertainment than for news. I found this bit in particular amusing."It's very Chicago school to say if there's a monopoly, just bust them up," says Eugene Crew, a senior partner with the San Francisco-based intellectual property and antitrust firm Townsend, Townsend & Crew. "I think he would recommend a structural change over constant and regular government intervention" when helping to find common settlement grounds. Ahem. I think Mr. Crew is perhaps a bit simplistic in his characterization of the dread Chicago school. On a somewhat more serious note:Given his prestige and position as a federal circuit judge, Posner's assesment of Microsoft's odds on appeal will carry a lot of wieght. If Posner feels such an appeal is likely to fail, Microsoft may feel even greater pressure to settle, particularly in light of Posner's views on anti-trust law. "A mediator is not an arbitrator. He's a facilitator of communication. His job is to get both sides to narrow the perception gap and lower their guard and their posturing," Crew says. According to mediation protocol, Posner is not allowed to share the content of any discussions with anyone, including Jackson. In addition, the results of his work are not binding. Once the mediation process is deemed complete, approximately 90 days are slated to elapse before Jackson issues his Proposed Rules Of Law in the case. Right. I think the early coverage largely missed the distinction between a mediator and an arbitrator. On a more purely entertaining note, we have Mary Jo's column from last week: Microsoft: 'You Mean This Is Wrong'? zdnet.com "You mean this is wrong?" asks an obviously incredulous Bill Gates of a black-robed judge. In the background of a cartoon from last week's Los Angeles Times, a henchman is smothering another guy with a pillow. The caption: "Mr. Gates discovers that his treatment of competitors is illegal." Welcome to the oxymoron "business ethics." In an industry where cutthroat competition, complete with exclusive contracts, padded prices and rampant employee stealing is considered "business as usual," is Microsoft behaving any worse than other companies in the high-tech realm? According to Microsoft's corporate ethics page (http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/values.htm)--thanks to Dan Kegel for the link--Microsoft is a company that "lives its values." "Our managers and employees must always act with the utmost integrity, and be guided by what is ethical and right for our customers. We compete vigorously and fairly," reads Microsoft's statement. Sure. I think the "integrity" mentioned above is the same one that is part of "the integrity and uniformity of the Windows experience". Cheers, Dan.