> Washed out to sea by El Nino?
Well, we live on a hill, so I've been washed down the hill. ;)
>I wonder about Microsoft and lobbyists. My reading is they've gotten their way
>plenty often in the past, and Slade Gorton is no slouch in protecting the state's
>interests. And, of course, my old line was always that the antitrust division would get
>its budget zeroed before they could hang anything on Bill & Co.
No, I think this time it's different. The Indians are really getting fierce, and it's circle the wagons time (again) at Microsoft.
It's looking more and more that it's not just about the Consent Decree any more. I've always said the Consent Decree is a lousy way to reign in Microsoft, and, if the press reports are true, it looks like someone in the Justice Department sees things the same way. It looks like they're going to expand this antitrust lawsuit big time.
President Bill has very good reasons for wanting to go after Chairman Bill like this and keep turning the screws.
For starters, I think Microsoft makes for a great villian. Clinton has always used Big Tobacco as a villian, and now he's got Big Software for people to be afraid of, too. All the more reason for people to vote Democrat in 2000.
It's also a great way to divide the Republican Party. As you know, Demos are generally no big fan of big buisness and love government regulation of the economy, while Repos generally are the opposite. The Microsoft case is unique in that Microsoft's business tactics have finally pissed off enough people that it has driven a wedge in the business community and, as a result, in the Republican Party. The longer the case goes on, the deeper and more public the schism becomes.
Great news for President Bill. Bad news for Chairman Bill.
>Now, I don't know. It's not like I'm unbiased, but everything they do seems so
>ham-fisted and clumsy.
Agreed.
>The same lines over and over again, with the same ample
>condescension for the mere mortal Senators as for the rest of us.
I have not seen the Microsoft hearing yet. I hope to catch the rebroadcast this weekend on C-Span, and I'll reserve judgment in the meantime. But from those small portions of the transcript I have seen, Chairman Bill's defense did not look very aggressive or convincing -- lots of evasive answers to Chairman Hatch's questions -- not like the tobacco guys, who got up there and said flat out and positively that smoking does not cause cancer. I guess DOJ must have some incriminating documents, and Chairman Bill doesn't want what happened to them to happen to him.;)
BTW: what little of the transcript I did see involved Chairman Hatch telling Chairman Bill, after Chairman Bill said he did not understand legal terms, that he (Chairman Hatch) did not think that words like "antitrust" and "monopoly" and "leveraging" were legal terms. Funny thing -- I thought these were terms of art in the field of Antitrust law. Anyway, Chairman Bill conceeded the point to Chairman Hatch, and after a few lines was when he started talking about Platinum group contracts not permitting people to promote Netscape and the like. Point scored to Chairman Hatch!
> Meanwhile, I can
>even find Libertarians dubious about Bill, like the Cato guy.
Post that article or send it to me. I'd like to read it.
>I don't go searching for
>pro-Microsoft stuff in the trades, but I don't avoid it either, and I haven't seen much.
>I'm sure the WSJ will reliably weigh in for MSFT, otherwise support seems to be
>getting thinner all the time.
Obviously, you don't subscribe to WSJ Interactive.;) They have written at least two editorials I have seen in support of Microsoft. But you are right, beyond that I have not seen much support for Microsoft -- certainly no principled discussion of why, from an economic policy or antitrust perspective, it's better to leave Microsoft alone; nodiscussion of the Rule of Reason. Does such a case exist? Right now, based on what's in the press, I don't see any.
>My advice to MSFT would be to follow the Intel lead, get some good antitrust
>lawyers and let them do their job, lay off the PR front for a while. Bill seems
>determined to represent himself legally, and we know the old saw about that one.
>Plus, his celebrity makes it sure that everything he says will be a story, otherwise
>everybody would probably get bored by the tedium and complexity of the whole
>thing. Like at the last Jackson hearing.
Personally, I feel this is a battle they can't win, though every indication is that they certainly will try and fight it in the typical Microsoft knee-jerk reaction fashion.
Hiring good antitrust laywers won't do the job. Can you think of a single major case in which the government has made a sustained effort to go after someone under the antitrust laws and lost? Offhand, I can't. If you can think of one, post it and let's talk about it. I bet you can't.
And, on the Congressional front, when was the last time an evil monopolist successfully turned back a major, concerted attempt to regulate it?
Chairman Bill being a celebrity won't help, either. It will just make him a bigger target once the politicians are through persuading the public that Microsoft is an evil monopolist.
The real question for me is: why do the Justice Deaprtment and Congress seem intent on going for an antitrust resolution that guarantees an ongoing governmental role in regulating Microsoft's conduct -- and why does Microsoft seem to be acquiescing in it?
Why don't they just break up the company?
Then the need for additional government regulation goes away. |
