Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Microsoft Corp. - Moderated (MSFT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (723)	10/26/2002 1:48:02 PM
From: miraje	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19790

I don't understand. Of course you do, Charles. And so does Dave and many other MSFT haters. What precisely did you want Gates to do? This guy said it quite well, over three years ago: freeradical.co.nz Bill Gates: Hero, Coward DAVID C. ADAMS ...Before the trial even began, Bill Gates blithely proclaimed his disinterest in justice, and ensured his defeat by stating in his deposition that he did not question the legitimacy of antitrust. Gates likely thought this the most "pragmatic" position, his best chance for winning. He was wrong. What if Bill Gates had made a principled defense in his trial? Imagine he read Atlas Shrugged, let's say, and found special affinity for Hank Rearden and the latter's defense in a similar trial. When presenting his deposition before the Department of Justice, Bill Gates would have said, "Not only is Microsoft not guilty of any crimes, but I do not recognize the legitimacy of the law under which it is being held guilty. I do not recognize the legitimacy of punishing an individual or company not for any force or fraud, but for being successful." But this approach is dangerous. It sends a chill through every pragmatic sinew of Microsoft's lawyers. It sounds so extreme. It's unprecedented. It's unthinkable. It would have worked... ...This is not a trial about a company abusing its customers with monopoly powers, such as is seen with local phone companies or the US Postal Service. Instead, the trial is driven by companies such as Netscape and Sun Microsystems, who are envious of success and unwilling to challenge it in an open market — as well as the government goons who are eager to fatten power and pocketbooks. This brings me back to my hypothetical situation from above. I claim that if Bill Gates had decided to recognize the moral principles involved in this trial, to stand firm and proclaim his — and everyone's — right to succeed, the effect would have been pyrotechnic. Such a flagrant challenge to the status quo would have the press in an ecstasy. Suddenly, Bill Gates and his audacious notion of the right to be left alone would be discussed everywhere. The real principles of the trial would be unavoidably exposed. He would have changed the terms of debate. But most importantly, giving political potency to his stand, we would have seen the popular support of thousands of Microsoft customers who know they like Microsoft's products, knew the trial smelled funky, but did not have the words. The smug Department of Justice would have to scramble to manufacture new rationalizations. It is they who would be on the defensive. And at this point, Microsoft would have had a very good chance of winning — and at the same time, striking a harsh blow against tyranny....