- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Linux News: Does Microsoft's Monopoly Power Extend to Government and Media?
Two articles in the Dallas Morning News caught my eye and reminded me of Microsoft's dominance in influencing news. Yet, each story seems like such unrelated subject matter. If I didn't know better, I would just smile and not even think about the connections. The first story is entitled For Microsoft time to run up the score. The lead by Victor Godinez says: It's original Xbox lost money, but the new version aims to dominate, turn a profit With all the technology news in north and central Texas, home to Texas Instruments, EDS, Dell and hundreds of telecom companies, why am I reading about a product that has never made a profit? The above article demonstrates how Microsoft has succeeded in impressing newspaper writers. For day trips to wonderful Redmond and the royal treatment and these guys do back flips. If the purpose of a newspaper is to offer news and entertainment to its readers, where's the news? What's going on in Dallas-FtWorth and Austin in the tech sector? The second article not so obviousDown here, we have a real situation on our hands. It all revolves around the relationship with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his former Microsoft Lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Of course, Abramoff worked for Preston Gates and Ellis, the law firm and lobbyist for Microsoft that has Bill's dad's name on the door. Ex-Delay aide Michael Scanlon, a business partner of Jack Abramoff and top aide to DeLay pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe a member of Congress and other public officials. He agree to repay $19.6 million dollars to clients. He acknowledged in a plea agreement that he and Mr. Abramoff agreed to make lavish gifts to public officials, including all expense-paid trips to Europe and the Super-Bowl in exchange for official actions. One of those trips for Tom DeLay included an American Express receipt charged to Preston Gates and Ellis. Of course if you have excessive influence in the media you can bury such facts. On to the Boston HeraldIn an article entitled Open source opens sore eyes writer Jesse Noyes writes: In a move that could improve Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft Corp.’s relations with government agencies, the behemoth software maker is moving toward establishing an open standard of technology for its ubiquitous Office software suite. I started reading the story and immediately thought about how officials in Massachusetts had defanged Governor Mit Romney and CIO Peter Quinn. Cub reporter, Noyes goes on to praise Microsoft by writing: Microsoft has drawn fire both overseas and from local governments for holding a monopoly on document software. This reminds me of the cub reporter the Dallas Morning News made their technology specialist. We're talking spin zone, I mean really the spin zone. Noyes cannot even get the acronym for ODF right and then he has the audacity to suggest that Bill Gates & Co. made a "move that could improve Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft Corp.’s relations with government agencies". How much of an improvement, he doesn't say. What to Do?OK. This has finally gotten out of hand. We're way past the tolerance level. I don't care how many of you detest counter-media figures like Bill O'Reilly and Wolf Blitzer, but it's time to email them. They will respond to your email. They see massive email and they respond. This stuff has to get into the major media and we have to do it. I won't tell you what to write, but I will suggest that you ask them to investigate the link between Microsoft and the recent decisions in Massachusetts regarding the Open Document Format. Tell the story as best you can. Below are ways to write these guys. Additionally, please post names and email addresses of other media people who can't afford to miss a story like this. It will take a lot of emails, so please make sure you chose National Media figures with significant followings. Repectfully submitted oreilly@foxnews.com The Situation Room Related stories: |
LXer Day Desk: 11-22-2005
|
|
Comments (61)
My email to Bill O'Reilly at Fox
email subject: Media giving Microsoft a pass on shady politics.
Bill,
Microsoft is not looking out for the folks. It seems that the only press MS gets these days are the "ohhh's" and "ahhh's" from the tech writers. It is obvious to even the most un-interested person that Microsoft may be making some back-room political deals in Massachusetts. Take a look and see what you think. http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/48268/index.html.
We need some juice here. For the most part, the day-to-day computer user is getting ignored.
Ken Starks austin, Tx
Bill,
Microsoft is not looking out for the folks. It seems that the only press MS gets these days are the "ohhh's" and "ahhh's" from the tech writers. It is obvious to even the most un-interested person that Microsoft may be making some back-room political deals in Massachusetts. Take a look and see what you think. http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/48268/index.html.
We need some juice here. For the most part, the day-to-day computer user is getting ignored.
Ken Starks austin, Tx
other media contacts for 'Microsoft's Monopoly Power'
mossberg@wsj.com- Walt Mossber, technology columnist for the Wall Street Journal
pandrews@seattletimes.com -- Paul Andrews, Seattle Times tech columnist.
bbisbee@seattletimes.com -- Becky Bisbee, Seattle Times Business Editor
The Seattle Times is Microsoft's hometown newspaper.
The Seattle Times is Microsoft's hometown newspaper.
OK, will you suggest an email or copy yours, please.
I went ahead and sent my email on the other thread.
I went ahead and sent my email on the other thread.
Other people to try are managing editors, like:
mfancher@seattletimes.com -- Michael Fancher, boss of the Seattle times
Since reporters on the tech beats tend to be so unquestioning of the Microsoft party line, pitch it as a political story to higher-up editors:
'Dear Mr. Fancher,
I believe that tech reporters are missing the real Microsoft stories. Microsoft has been busily transferring its notoriously heavy-handed tactics to the political arena, in addition to having a multi-billion dollar war chest to buy influence. The current story is their heavy-handed attack on the State of Massachusett's attempt to mandate that all public documents be stored in open document formats, so that they are available to all citizens, and easily archived for the long-term in formats that will not become obsolete and unreadable.
"Microsoft has thrown the big guns into opposing this, even to the point of pressuring the governor to re-organize the entire state government, and conning disability advocacy groups into opposing ODF. Which, by the way, is to their detriment. (See the links below for more information.)
"I would very much like to see tech reporters start exhibiting some healthy skepticism, and really doing some reporting, instead of unquestioningly reporting whatever Microsoft tells them. This is no ordinary company- their dirty deeds are legion and unending, yet they are continually given a pass in the mainstream news media.
"Thank you, and I hope to see your usual high standards applied to these stories.
"best regards, "
"Microsoft Whines About MA's Decision to Support OpenDocument" http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051015042041410
"Massachusetts: The ODF Battle Gets Ugly" http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051117130850178
"Linux News: Does Microsoft's Monopoly Power Extend to Government and Media?" http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/48268/index.html
Since reporters on the tech beats tend to be so unquestioning of the Microsoft party line, pitch it as a political story to higher-up editors:
'Dear Mr. Fancher,
I believe that tech reporters are missing the real Microsoft stories. Microsoft has been busily transferring its notoriously heavy-handed tactics to the political arena, in addition to having a multi-billion dollar war chest to buy influence. The current story is their heavy-handed attack on the State of Massachusett's attempt to mandate that all public documents be stored in open document formats, so that they are available to all citizens, and easily archived for the long-term in formats that will not become obsolete and unreadable.
"Microsoft has thrown the big guns into opposing this, even to the point of pressuring the governor to re-organize the entire state government, and conning disability advocacy groups into opposing ODF. Which, by the way, is to their detriment. (See the links below for more information.)
"I would very much like to see tech reporters start exhibiting some healthy skepticism, and really doing some reporting, instead of unquestioningly reporting whatever Microsoft tells them. This is no ordinary company- their dirty deeds are legion and unending, yet they are continually given a pass in the mainstream news media.
"Thank you, and I hope to see your usual high standards applied to these stories.
"best regards, "
"Microsoft Whines About MA's Decision to Support OpenDocument" http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051015042041410
"Massachusetts: The ODF Battle Gets Ugly" http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051117130850178
"Linux News: Does Microsoft's Monopoly Power Extend to Government and Media?" http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/48268/index.html
hey, I got a response:
"Thanks. I'll share this with our business editor, who oversees Microsoft coverage."
Who knows if it will lead to anything, but getting a response is good.
"Thanks. I'll share this with our business editor, who oversees Microsoft coverage."
Who knows if it will lead to anything, but getting a response is good.
Yeah!!!!
Better late than never...just got in and fired off a letter to the Editor of the Austin American Statesman, the Business Editor and the Tech Editor. This City has had a love affair with MS for ages and the politics here stink to high heaven, but I guess they do everywhere.
helios
helios
In the Al Capone case, the only way the Fed's could get him was to try him on tax evasion. Capone was so confident that he would win, he fell asleep during the trial.
Somehow, one of the Fed's discovered that everyone on the jury had been bribed as well as the judge. So, they got the jury switched and won.
But, the guy had committed murder in plain view and no one would indict him.
That's what paying off politicians does. We've never seen so much corruption in America before. It's beyond belief. Only the Viet Nam war even comes close. And look what kind of public outcry that took to even get them to think about stopping it.
Somehow, one of the Fed's discovered that everyone on the jury had been bribed as well as the judge. So, they got the jury switched and won.
But, the guy had committed murder in plain view and no one would indict him.
That's what paying off politicians does. We've never seen so much corruption in America before. It's beyond belief. Only the Viet Nam war even comes close. And look what kind of public outcry that took to even get them to think about stopping it.
Amusingly, the folks at http://www.technocrat.net have linked to the original LXer article: http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/11/22/2337254
Check out the comments at technocrat.net: apparently, lxer.com is for linux fan-boys only, no civilized discussion, and everything that MSFT does is bad. Hmmmmm.... they used to reserve that canard for slashdot. Now that the MSFT shills and trolls rule there, the other shills and trolls no longer consider slashdot a linux fan-boy site.
As far as "balanced" coverage of Microsoft, I feel the need to recount an ancient parable:
Two children squabbled over the last piece of cake in the kitchen. One child said that they should split the piece of cake exactly in half, and each child should get half. The other child maintained that he should get all the cake, and the first child should get none.
Then, a journalist entered the kitchen, assessed the situtation, and delivered a "balanced" answer: The first child should get one-quarter of the piece of cake, while the second child should get three-quarters.
I think we can all learn two things from this parable:
1. Sometimes you can't compromise. 2. "Balance" isn't necessarily fair or accurate.
Check out the comments at technocrat.net: apparently, lxer.com is for linux fan-boys only, no civilized discussion, and everything that MSFT does is bad. Hmmmmm.... they used to reserve that canard for slashdot. Now that the MSFT shills and trolls rule there, the other shills and trolls no longer consider slashdot a linux fan-boy site.
As far as "balanced" coverage of Microsoft, I feel the need to recount an ancient parable:
Two children squabbled over the last piece of cake in the kitchen. One child said that they should split the piece of cake exactly in half, and each child should get half. The other child maintained that he should get all the cake, and the first child should get none.
Then, a journalist entered the kitchen, assessed the situtation, and delivered a "balanced" answer: The first child should get one-quarter of the piece of cake, while the second child should get three-quarters.
I think we can all learn two things from this parable:
1. Sometimes you can't compromise. 2. "Balance" isn't necessarily fair or accurate.
hey, it's our new friend vonskippy!
Notice he has no friends on Technocrat either.
Notice he has no friends on Technocrat either.
Digg Overloaded? No way. Any Microsoft thoughts?
TxtEdMacs alerted me to this:
Digg is experiencing sudden massive user growth. We're adding servers right this moment to handle the increase of load. Please bear with us and we'll be back online shortly!
Digg is experiencing sudden massive user growth. We're adding servers right this moment to handle the increase of load. Please bear with us and we'll be back online shortly!
Things are not as bad as you think
I am likely endangering myself - and this is my first LXer posting ever - by saying; things are not as bad as you might think. Yes, M$ is embedding (entrenching?) itself as it always has, but Open Source is - literally - something you can not stop. It is as persistant as (bad comparison) warez. Open Source is here to stay. It really will not matter (and it has not in the past) what M$ - or anyone for that matter - does. This has been proven time and again - over and over.
You would like an example? Great! I have been interviewing (and getting my arse handed to me I might add) mostly on the Open Source angle. What I have learned, other than I am inadequate, is that Open Source is incredibly alive. I have literally been in interviews (for once) where they all sort of cringe when I mention anything proprietery.
Yes, these are bad things, but they have been attempted before; they were also refuted. Have faith and just keep using Open Source: this is the way - not bullywarking.
You would like an example? Great! I have been interviewing (and getting my arse handed to me I might add) mostly on the Open Source angle. What I have learned, other than I am inadequate, is that Open Source is incredibly alive. I have literally been in interviews (for once) where they all sort of cringe when I mention anything proprietery.
Yes, these are bad things, but they have been attempted before; they were also refuted. Have faith and just keep using Open Source: this is the way - not bullywarking.
Liberal Media Bias
3 earlier comments in the full thread.
I have to agree with Sam. Well said.
Sam -
Yes.
Yes.
Dino-
As far as Fox goes I haven't seen them be pro/anti firefox/OSS in any way at all.
As far as Fox goes I haven't seen them be pro/anti firefox/OSS in any way at all.
Sam-
It's alot more about left/right than most people think. Alot of people point to MS and automatically jerk their knee and say "that's capitalism". It's not. That's corporatism. And at the same time people point to OSS and automatically jerk their knee and say "that's communism". It's not. That's Altruism.
Though as it sits now Linux is much more competitive with MS/Apple and even with itself than MS/A are. MS/A are the ones pushing dependency and group think.(which is what communism tend towards) I'm getting sidetracked.....
As far as how this ties into the media, not very many of them know about it. But it's not hard to be pro-OSS while at the same time being pro-MS. Like I said, once linux becomes a bigger player and some of them know more about it they'll take their predictable stances of pro-OSS.(and pro-MS for fox)
And even your bringing up NPR is a good example of bias. In this case, leftist bias via NPR.
NPR you say is pro-RIAA/MPAA. I can't stand them. But unlike most people(and it drives me up the wall when the media doesn't inform, but rather they indoctrinate) I've actually paid attention and remembered who exactly it is that's pushing RIAA/MPAA to do what it does. To call us thieves. To give us DRM. and to twist MS's arm into throwing their weight behind DRM.(Not that MS doesn't have alot to gain anyways)
Elitists like Dr Dre and Metallica. I hope you'll never forget that they are better than us. I know I won't. Thank you Dre/Metallica for DRM. I'll never buy your CD's again.
It's alot more about left/right than most people think. Alot of people point to MS and automatically jerk their knee and say "that's capitalism". It's not. That's corporatism. And at the same time people point to OSS and automatically jerk their knee and say "that's communism". It's not. That's Altruism.
Though as it sits now Linux is much more competitive with MS/Apple and even with itself than MS/A are. MS/A are the ones pushing dependency and group think.(which is what communism tend towards) I'm getting sidetracked.....
As far as how this ties into the media, not very many of them know about it. But it's not hard to be pro-OSS while at the same time being pro-MS. Like I said, once linux becomes a bigger player and some of them know more about it they'll take their predictable stances of pro-OSS.(and pro-MS for fox)
And even your bringing up NPR is a good example of bias. In this case, leftist bias via NPR.
NPR you say is pro-RIAA/MPAA. I can't stand them. But unlike most people(and it drives me up the wall when the media doesn't inform, but rather they indoctrinate) I've actually paid attention and remembered who exactly it is that's pushing RIAA/MPAA to do what it does. To call us thieves. To give us DRM. and to twist MS's arm into throwing their weight behind DRM.(Not that MS doesn't have alot to gain anyways)
Elitists like Dr Dre and Metallica. I hope you'll never forget that they are better than us. I know I won't. Thank you Dre/Metallica for DRM. I'll never buy your CD's again.
Is it really right/left, or just plain lazy/lazy?
1. Crib from Associated Press, other publications, and TV news 2. Throw together a few "he said she said" quotes from random dingalings to show "balance." 3.... 4. Profit!
1. Crib from Associated Press, other publications, and TV news 2. Throw together a few "he said she said" quotes from random dingalings to show "balance." 3.... 4. Profit!
OK. So, I am a history buff and I have worked in government a long time. My first job out of college while finishing a correspondence course for my last semester hour was for a DoD M&O Contractor. We built and managed facilities. I also interned in DC with a presidential appointment a long time ago while in college.
I won't go into the other areas of study. That's just a little information I have shared before to establish some credibility.
Most of the comments I see about left/right are so wrong. You hate Fox and call it evil. I know people who operate on the extreme left and they love moveover and think it's a bastion of progressive people.
Guys, these ideologies are basically what we call "beats" in journalism. They say what clicks and gets them ratings and that's it. Really. Your hero is just saying what you want to hear. That's all.
Once in Washington DC, people don't care much about right/left-liberal/conservative-democrat/republican.
It's all a big story with drama to keep you engaged and entertained. They want your attention and that's all.
Once I realized this, I was really disillusioned for a while. A beast does exist called a politician and they are basically sociopaths. They lack something called a conscience.
When I had my CPA firm and was the managing partner, my secretary was a Senator's daughter. I did the family finances. That nice young lady eventually died with her father in a plane crash.
You have no idea what really goes on behind the scenes. You are being played like fiddles.
This thread is humorous and sad. Calling Fox evil is like calling a box evil. It's all a big act and the people are actors. If you believe any differently you have been taken big time.
I won't go into the other areas of study. That's just a little information I have shared before to establish some credibility.
Most of the comments I see about left/right are so wrong. You hate Fox and call it evil. I know people who operate on the extreme left and they love moveover and think it's a bastion of progressive people.
Guys, these ideologies are basically what we call "beats" in journalism. They say what clicks and gets them ratings and that's it. Really. Your hero is just saying what you want to hear. That's all.
Once in Washington DC, people don't care much about right/left-liberal/conservative-democrat/republican.
It's all a big story with drama to keep you engaged and entertained. They want your attention and that's all.
Once I realized this, I was really disillusioned for a while. A beast does exist called a politician and they are basically sociopaths. They lack something called a conscience.
When I had my CPA firm and was the managing partner, my secretary was a Senator's daughter. I did the family finances. That nice young lady eventually died with her father in a plane crash.
You have no idea what really goes on behind the scenes. You are being played like fiddles.
This thread is humorous and sad. Calling Fox evil is like calling a box evil. It's all a big act and the people are actors. If you believe any differently you have been taken big time.
floyd said it best...
Hey you, Whitehouse, Ha ha charade you are.
:)
Hey you, Whitehouse, Ha ha charade you are.
:)
tadelste: Depressing though it is, you really nailed that one.
Tom et al:
That's why all this talk of evil is so silly.
Good and evil are eternal constants, devoid of political position.
When it comes to politicians, businesses, journalists, what have you, the questions are "What have you done for me lately," "What are you doing for me now," and "How can I be sure of what you'll do for me tomorrow".
That's why all this talk of evil is so silly.
Good and evil are eternal constants, devoid of political position.
When it comes to politicians, businesses, journalists, what have you, the questions are "What have you done for me lately," "What are you doing for me now," and "How can I be sure of what you'll do for me tomorrow".
Dino: Imagine Bill's and Steve's behavior if they attended Church regularly.
Tuxchick-
As far as the media goes, yes it's right/left wing. Pretty much everybody under the sun acknowledges that Faux is right wing. No secret there, no argument there, next paragraph please.
The rest of the media is where the problem is. They are so left wing and have been for years and people act like this is new, people act like it's a secret, and some act like it's a lie.
Example after example can be given.
Look at the original article. A reference to delay and abramoff is being given while complaining about buried facts. Abramoff was in bed with democrats too. Talk about buried facts. And the media tried to do the same thing, it wasn't until fox put it on for a few days that the rest of the media had to acknowledge the fact.(looks like it was tadelste who wrote the article, I don't blame him for not knowing the whole story. The media won't talk about it) You hadn't noticed how the entire brunt force of the liberal media establishment is going on and on now about a "culture of corruption" and "the cabal"? They've already got Libby and Delay tried, convicted, and behind bars..... based on a simple indictment.
If indictments are rock-solid, so then that must mean that when we indicted saddam/osama in 1998 that it's rock-solid. There was a connection. Right? I mean, surely the media has some consistency right?
Look at how it was bush's fault that the oil prices kept going up. But now nobody in the media's blaming him for them coming down.
Back when the catholic priest thing was going on, there was(and rightfully so) demands for investigation after investigation to see just how far at went. Just how corrupt the whole thing really was. You don't see anybody in the media doing the exact same thing with the american school system.(another home for american leftists) I've heard O'reilly say it at least once.
The media loves to bash and fearmonger about ANWR. How it's so bad for the environment.(drilling) Anybody remember the alaska pipeline? Remember the fearmongering then too? Yeah, The caribou population has gone up contrary to what they were saying then. And on this same topic, why to people create artificial reefs in oceans? Yes, offshore oil rigs also act as reefs.
How about Iraq? It takes bombings where massive people get killed for them to bring it upon themselves to talk about how american troops give gifts to iraqi children.(what about the rest of their interaction, with the people as well) They've avoided many protests in Iraq, and will maybe place it on their website and bury it. But god forbid they talk about the whole story on a regular basis. Inform america? No way! The american people *dont* have a right to know.
They didn't come outright and say it, but left all the doors open to blaming the Katrina mess on the feds. Uhhh, hello! Just read the founding documents. Federalism cannot be ignored. FEMA's incompetence was compounded in a major way by the incompetence of the first responders. Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin.
There's the provided example.... NPR, RIAA, MPAA, and the mysterious leaving off about Dre/metallica calling us thieves.
It's too easy to point out their left wing bias. Time after time.
As far as the media goes, yes it's right/left wing. Pretty much everybody under the sun acknowledges that Faux is right wing. No secret there, no argument there, next paragraph please.
The rest of the media is where the problem is. They are so left wing and have been for years and people act like this is new, people act like it's a secret, and some act like it's a lie.
Example after example can be given.
Look at the original article. A reference to delay and abramoff is being given while complaining about buried facts. Abramoff was in bed with democrats too. Talk about buried facts. And the media tried to do the same thing, it wasn't until fox put it on for a few days that the rest of the media had to acknowledge the fact.(looks like it was tadelste who wrote the article, I don't blame him for not knowing the whole story. The media won't talk about it) You hadn't noticed how the entire brunt force of the liberal media establishment is going on and on now about a "culture of corruption" and "the cabal"? They've already got Libby and Delay tried, convicted, and behind bars..... based on a simple indictment.
If indictments are rock-solid, so then that must mean that when we indicted saddam/osama in 1998 that it's rock-solid. There was a connection. Right? I mean, surely the media has some consistency right?
Look at how it was bush's fault that the oil prices kept going up. But now nobody in the media's blaming him for them coming down.
Back when the catholic priest thing was going on, there was(and rightfully so) demands for investigation after investigation to see just how far at went. Just how corrupt the whole thing really was. You don't see anybody in the media doing the exact same thing with the american school system.(another home for american leftists) I've heard O'reilly say it at least once.
The media loves to bash and fearmonger about ANWR. How it's so bad for the environment.(drilling) Anybody remember the alaska pipeline? Remember the fearmongering then too? Yeah, The caribou population has gone up contrary to what they were saying then. And on this same topic, why to people create artificial reefs in oceans? Yes, offshore oil rigs also act as reefs.
How about Iraq? It takes bombings where massive people get killed for them to bring it upon themselves to talk about how american troops give gifts to iraqi children.(what about the rest of their interaction, with the people as well) They've avoided many protests in Iraq, and will maybe place it on their website and bury it. But god forbid they talk about the whole story on a regular basis. Inform america? No way! The american people *dont* have a right to know.
They didn't come outright and say it, but left all the doors open to blaming the Katrina mess on the feds. Uhhh, hello! Just read the founding documents. Federalism cannot be ignored. FEMA's incompetence was compounded in a major way by the incompetence of the first responders. Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin.
There's the provided example.... NPR, RIAA, MPAA, and the mysterious leaving off about Dre/metallica calling us thieves.
It's too easy to point out their left wing bias. Time after time.
Tadelste-
Once in DC they do care about right/left. D/R. True conservatives turn into p***ys and moderate democrats become raving liberals. The entire town is run by the left, and if you've ever been there you'd see what I mean. Building after building in DC is there for one sole purpose.
To spend money. To spend *our* money.
Oh, and when I call fox "evil", it's tongue in cheek. Right wing fox isn't any more evil than left wing... all of them.... are. They're just cheerleaders.
They're 527 groups. Fox puts out it's advertisements in the form of news so it can get republicans elected, and the rest put out their advertisements in the form of news so they can get democrats elected.
Once in DC they do care about right/left. D/R. True conservatives turn into p***ys and moderate democrats become raving liberals. The entire town is run by the left, and if you've ever been there you'd see what I mean. Building after building in DC is there for one sole purpose.
To spend money. To spend *our* money.
Oh, and when I call fox "evil", it's tongue in cheek. Right wing fox isn't any more evil than left wing... all of them.... are. They're just cheerleaders.
They're 527 groups. Fox puts out it's advertisements in the form of news so it can get republicans elected, and the rest put out their advertisements in the form of news so they can get democrats elected.
Talk to me about indictments. In 1996, a case went before the grand jury here in Travis County naming every tow truck owner. I knew absolutely nothing about it until the case was actually dropped. Seemed that we (every tow truck company in Travis County) were being charged with price-fixing. The entire thing was dropped in less than 72 hours after a True Bill had been returned.
My point is simple. A Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich. Anyone here wish to lobby against something? Lobby against this corrupt and leaky legal procedure.
My point is simple. A Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich. Anyone here wish to lobby against something? Lobby against this corrupt and leaky legal procedure.
helios --
This whole grand jury can indict a ham sandwich thing is urban myth.
They're much more likely to indict a steak.
Juror pay is laughable, so they do what they can do.
As to needing a real case to indict a person for a crime, that appears to be an even bigger urban myth.
This whole grand jury can indict a ham sandwich thing is urban myth.
They're much more likely to indict a steak.
Juror pay is laughable, so they do what they can do.
As to needing a real case to indict a person for a crime, that appears to be an even bigger urban myth.
Helios-
You got it. The problem is how the liberal media is handling it. They already have Delay and Libby tried, convicted, and behind bars. In their minds, it's already proven. Delay was guilty 5 years ago much less now that there's an indictment. Libby was guilty even before the indictment just because he's a member of the bush administration.
That's how they are reaching their conclusions of the "culture of corruption" and "cabal. *Anybody* can see how they are using these as tools to get their propaganda out into the masses.
The media hates the bush administration. And so should you. And they're determined to do anything to make you think a certain way.
The american people do not have a right to know.(the new media motto)
You got it. The problem is how the liberal media is handling it. They already have Delay and Libby tried, convicted, and behind bars. In their minds, it's already proven. Delay was guilty 5 years ago much less now that there's an indictment. Libby was guilty even before the indictment just because he's a member of the bush administration.
That's how they are reaching their conclusions of the "culture of corruption" and "cabal. *Anybody* can see how they are using these as tools to get their propaganda out into the masses.
The media hates the bush administration. And so should you. And they're determined to do anything to make you think a certain way.
The american people do not have a right to know.(the new media motto)
halfmnhlfamazng:
You mean on stage. You mean when the houses conviene. You mean in front of the press. You don't mean in their heart, at home or when they're having a drink or smoking marijuana with one of their buddies.
From what I have seen, they are mostly alcoholics and cocaine addicts and their kids are messed up. They have extra-martial affairs and often go both ways. You can attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes with your pretense of knowledge about Washington DC and the politics in the US. Just don't direct your comments at me.
I'm not a cynic. I'm an observer. I admit that some of the politicians in DC are true to their conviction for some period of time. But, it takes a certain kind of personality to do what they do. I've seen it in aspiring politicians who start off as precinct chair to become delegates and delegates who want appointments and appointees who eventually run for office once they get their financing and network together. I've seen it when they take office and in their personal habits.
They have a personality disorder and anyone who plays with it suffers from the same.
Quoting:Once in DC they do care about right/left. D/R. True conservatives turn into p***ys and moderate democrats become raving liberals.
You mean on stage. You mean when the houses conviene. You mean in front of the press. You don't mean in their heart, at home or when they're having a drink or smoking marijuana with one of their buddies.
From what I have seen, they are mostly alcoholics and cocaine addicts and their kids are messed up. They have extra-martial affairs and often go both ways. You can attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes with your pretense of knowledge about Washington DC and the politics in the US. Just don't direct your comments at me.
I'm not a cynic. I'm an observer. I admit that some of the politicians in DC are true to their conviction for some period of time. But, it takes a certain kind of personality to do what they do. I've seen it in aspiring politicians who start off as precinct chair to become delegates and delegates who want appointments and appointees who eventually run for office once they get their financing and network together. I've seen it when they take office and in their personal habits.
They have a personality disorder and anyone who plays with it suffers from the same.
Tadelste-
No, I do mean in their hearts, and minds. Look at the things they support. It doesn't matter that national healthcare is failing in Canada, that it's failing in Britain, these idiots are still pushing for it. It's absolutely amazing to watch. And the lib media does nothing to call them out on it. That's what's so laughable.
Much of what you say is accurate, but not all.
I'm not a cynic either. But there are some very bad things going on that some people just don't want to talk about, and they don't even want them mentioned.
Quoting:You mean on stage. You mean when the houses conviene. You mean in front of the press. You don't mean in their heart, at home or when they're having a drink or smoking marijuana with one of their buddies.
No, I do mean in their hearts, and minds. Look at the things they support. It doesn't matter that national healthcare is failing in Canada, that it's failing in Britain, these idiots are still pushing for it. It's absolutely amazing to watch. And the lib media does nothing to call them out on it. That's what's so laughable.
Much of what you say is accurate, but not all.
I'm not a cynic either. But there are some very bad things going on that some people just don't want to talk about, and they don't even want them mentioned.
halfmnhlfamazng: I only wish that your view of the thing had a measure of reality to it. I only say that because if you ever engage in the arena and you are a kind and loving person, your heart will be broken. That makes me feel a little sad.
I won't argue much more as I have a lot on my plate. I suggest that the degree to which I feel "much of what I say is accurate" is further down the line that where you believe it to be. I takes an incredible amount of effort to acieve a position in politics. That dedication is too often for the sake of money. You'll find more altruism in a single open source project than you will in politics.
I won't argue much more as I have a lot on my plate. I suggest that the degree to which I feel "much of what I say is accurate" is further down the line that where you believe it to be. I takes an incredible amount of effort to acieve a position in politics. That dedication is too often for the sake of money. You'll find more altruism in a single open source project than you will in politics.
Tom --
I grew up around DC and DC people, not to mention being actively involved in politics (winning and losing) a number of times in my life.
I think lots of people keep their convictions as they go through their political careers, but...
I've also been a lawyer, as have most politicians. Lawyers are supposed to be able to work both sides of any issue. The biggest event of first year -- moot court -- requires that one argue both sides of a case to advance and win.
To succeed in politics doesn't mean abandoning your convictions. For many, however, it means ignoring them when it is strategic to do so. The further you go, the easier it is to do.
I grew up around DC and DC people, not to mention being actively involved in politics (winning and losing) a number of times in my life.
I think lots of people keep their convictions as they go through their political careers, but...
I've also been a lawyer, as have most politicians. Lawyers are supposed to be able to work both sides of any issue. The biggest event of first year -- moot court -- requires that one argue both sides of a case to advance and win.
To succeed in politics doesn't mean abandoning your convictions. For many, however, it means ignoring them when it is strategic to do so. The further you go, the easier it is to do.
Dino,
That's all I'm saying.
That's all I'm saying.
Reed reports Microsoft paid him $1.57 million
5 earlier comments in the full thread.
6x -
Hadn't really thought about it that way, but you might have a point. I have always thought that the Clinton DOJ never actually intended to win the case...they just managed to get an independent judge and vastly underestimated just how nasty Microsoft really is. Throw in a few boneheaded maneuvers like faking evidence in a bench trial, and bingo!! You're got a win whether you want it or not.
Hadn't really thought about it that way, but you might have a point. I have always thought that the Clinton DOJ never actually intended to win the case...they just managed to get an independent judge and vastly underestimated just how nasty Microsoft really is. Throw in a few boneheaded maneuvers like faking evidence in a bench trial, and bingo!! You're got a win whether you want it or not.
number6x:
I don't doubt there was a bit of the shakedown involved, but I can't summon up any sympathy for MS. They've been shaking down the world for many years.
The influence purchased by Microsoft and by the MAFIAA is the most worrisome to me, right now. Microsoft's influence is troubling because of their history of anti-competitive tactics. The MAFIAA (who around here coined that acronym, anyway?) currently holds influence beyond its size in the economic pie.
I don't doubt there was a bit of the shakedown involved, but I can't summon up any sympathy for MS. They've been shaking down the world for many years.
The influence purchased by Microsoft and by the MAFIAA is the most worrisome to me, right now. Microsoft's influence is troubling because of their history of anti-competitive tactics. The MAFIAA (who around here coined that acronym, anyway?) currently holds influence beyond its size in the economic pie.
MAFIAA
http://www.mafiaa.org/
"We no longer have to have both the movie and music industries buying up senators and congressmen to get restrictive copyright laws passed," Glickman explained. "Now the representatives will be getting one sack of money from one organization. The cost savings to us will be tremendous."
"We no longer have to have both the movie and music industries buying up senators and congressmen to get restrictive copyright laws passed," Glickman explained. "Now the representatives will be getting one sack of money from one organization. The cost savings to us will be tremendous."
Thanks, tuxchick2! Maybe that was linked from LXer at one time? Even if it wasn't, it's fiendishly funny enough to have come from the gang around here.
grouch, I think I saw that link on Slashdot. It's one of my faves.
As far as the news value of Microsoft employing the services of the evil power-mad consummate back-room wheeler-dealer Ralph Reed, well, it is newsworthy just for what it is. That's the value of public disclosure. The guy is an unprincipled hired gun, one of the best, and you can bet money that anyone using his services is just as unprincipled and ruthless. If Georgians are dumb enough to elect him, they're in for a bad time.
As far as the news value of Microsoft employing the services of the evil power-mad consummate back-room wheeler-dealer Ralph Reed, well, it is newsworthy just for what it is. That's the value of public disclosure. The guy is an unprincipled hired gun, one of the best, and you can bet money that anyone using his services is just as unprincipled and ruthless. If Georgians are dumb enough to elect him, they're in for a bad time.
tuxchick2 -
>evil power-mad consummate back-room wheeler-dealer Ralph Reed
Something tells me that good ol' Ralph may not be a personal hero of yours.
>evil power-mad consummate back-room wheeler-dealer Ralph Reed
Something tells me that good ol' Ralph may not be a personal hero of yours.
Dino, don't be silly, I think he's adorable. I want to tweak his cherubic lil cheeks.
With channel-locks.
:)
:)
>With channel-locks.
You always hurt the one you love. Perhaps a few others along the way...
You always hurt the one you love. Perhaps a few others along the way...
dinotrac: >"I have always thought that the Clinton DOJ never actually intended to win the case..."
Um, which case? The Seattlement came after the win, y'know.
The Revised Proposed Final Judgement was filed 2001-11-06. The public comment period ended 2002-01-28. Out of over 30,000 comments received, our industrious DoJ selected 47 by 2002-02-14. Yup, just 17 days *counting weekends* to sift through the whole pile and tell the court those 47 were representative. Just 13 days later, on 2002-02-27, the DoJ submitted its "Response of the United States to Public Comments on the Revised Proposed Final Judgment".
Really weird for lawyers to win a case, then let the convict write the rules of the "penalty" (including escape routes) and select the overseers.
I hope everyone is properly ecstatic over the amazing array of competing PC operating systems now available from your local computer stores, brought to you by the incredible efforts of the Dept. of Justice and the awe-inspiring "Final Judgement". It almost chokes me up when I think of all the wonderful competition and examples of capitalism at its finest, enabled since the "Final Judgement" was entered on November 12, 2002.
Just think, if MS Vista can squeak onto the market by around Thanksgiving, 2007, it will just miss the end of the "Final Judgement" and have to face all those other, competing PC operating systems in "the relevant market".
Um, which case? The Seattlement came after the win, y'know.
The Revised Proposed Final Judgement was filed 2001-11-06. The public comment period ended 2002-01-28. Out of over 30,000 comments received, our industrious DoJ selected 47 by 2002-02-14. Yup, just 17 days *counting weekends* to sift through the whole pile and tell the court those 47 were representative. Just 13 days later, on 2002-02-27, the DoJ submitted its "Response of the United States to Public Comments on the Revised Proposed Final Judgment".
Really weird for lawyers to win a case, then let the convict write the rules of the "penalty" (including escape routes) and select the overseers.
I hope everyone is properly ecstatic over the amazing array of competing PC operating systems now available from your local computer stores, brought to you by the incredible efforts of the Dept. of Justice and the awe-inspiring "Final Judgement". It almost chokes me up when I think of all the wonderful competition and examples of capitalism at its finest, enabled since the "Final Judgement" was entered on November 12, 2002.
Just think, if MS Vista can squeak onto the market by around Thanksgiving, 2007, it will just miss the end of the "Final Judgement" and have to face all those other, competing PC operating systems in "the relevant market".
grouch -
The case was won by the Clinton DOJ. I don't believe that the Clinton Administration ever intended to win the case. Let's not forget that they made one sweetheart deal with Microsoft that didn't survive judicial scrutiny.
I have always found the fact that the case focused on the browser and explicitly left out Microsoft's confidential agreements with OEMs highly suspicious. That relationship creates a far stronger argument (in my not so humble opinion) than browser bundling ever did.
Like all administrations, the Clinton DOJ had to contend with the fact that the people in the trenches were civil servants instead of political appointees, and they had no control over the judge.
Surely they figured Microsoft would settle and, failing to settle, that Microsoft would be a little more sensible and not so - so - so Microsofty.
The case was won by the Clinton DOJ. I don't believe that the Clinton Administration ever intended to win the case. Let's not forget that they made one sweetheart deal with Microsoft that didn't survive judicial scrutiny.
I have always found the fact that the case focused on the browser and explicitly left out Microsoft's confidential agreements with OEMs highly suspicious. That relationship creates a far stronger argument (in my not so humble opinion) than browser bundling ever did.
Like all administrations, the Clinton DOJ had to contend with the fact that the people in the trenches were civil servants instead of political appointees, and they had no control over the judge.
Surely they figured Microsoft would settle and, failing to settle, that Microsoft would be a little more sensible and not so - so - so Microsofty.
dinotrac:
When did Dubya take office? What became of the case, then? I don't think the outcome would have been different if it had been the LaRouche DoJ followed by the Seattlement under Falwell. Timing and noise might be different, but not the effect.
I don't think the fiasco should be characterized by president or party. If you look at every time the DoJ made noises at Microsoft, it spans a lot of time. The public political wind doesn't seem to have affected the DoJ's repeated ability to generate publicity while being completely ineffective in hindering the monopoly.
Now if you want to smack Clinton around over the DMCA, I'll be happy to be your tag-team partner in that exercise.
When did Dubya take office? What became of the case, then? I don't think the outcome would have been different if it had been the LaRouche DoJ followed by the Seattlement under Falwell. Timing and noise might be different, but not the effect.
I don't think the fiasco should be characterized by president or party. If you look at every time the DoJ made noises at Microsoft, it spans a lot of time. The public political wind doesn't seem to have affected the DoJ's repeated ability to generate publicity while being completely ineffective in hindering the monopoly.
Now if you want to smack Clinton around over the DMCA, I'll be happy to be your tag-team partner in that exercise.
grouch -
Go back to regular tobacco. Better yet, follow your own advice and check the timeline. Bush wasn't in office during any portion of the trial.
I haven't said a word bout the punishment phase, or the Bush Administration's shameful failure to pursue aggressive measures during the remanded punishment phase.
I have talked only about the court case itself. I do not think that the Clinton administration ever intended to win that case. Period. Go back and check the timeline yourself. Had Bush been in office, I might be saying the same about him, but he wasn't. The case was brought by the Clinton administration after its attempt to make a sweetheart deal went down the drain.
Go back to regular tobacco. Better yet, follow your own advice and check the timeline. Bush wasn't in office during any portion of the trial.
I haven't said a word bout the punishment phase, or the Bush Administration's shameful failure to pursue aggressive measures during the remanded punishment phase.
I have talked only about the court case itself. I do not think that the Clinton administration ever intended to win that case. Period. Go back and check the timeline yourself. Had Bush been in office, I might be saying the same about him, but he wasn't. The case was brought by the Clinton administration after its attempt to make a sweetheart deal went down the drain.
dinotrac:
There is no "regular" tobacco around here. Please send some of yours.
That court case, and I think we're both talking about the latest one, was brought by the U.S. DoJ and 20 states attorneys general. I don't think Clinton was in 20 state offices.
Is the '94 Consent Decree the "sweetheart deal" you're referring to?
There is no "regular" tobacco around here. Please send some of yours.
That court case, and I think we're both talking about the latest one, was brought by the U.S. DoJ and 20 states attorneys general. I don't think Clinton was in 20 state offices.
Is the '94 Consent Decree the "sweetheart deal" you're referring to?
grouch:
The 1994 Consent Decree is what I refer to. That's the one that Judge Sporkin rejected for failing to meet Tunney Act requirements of serving the public interest. As later events demonstrated, Sporkin was right, and the Appeals Court that overturned his order was wrong.
"The" Court case was brought by the federal government. The assorted attorneys general brought their own case which were rolled into the federal case. Now answer me this, Twiddle Dee:
What happened to all of those state actions once the federal government brought it's case? Do you remember the 9 states who objected to the settlement? How far did their demands for stiffer punishment get them?
The Feds did Microsoft a big favor: Instead of 20 states, they fought one Federal Government. Microsoft being Microsoft, they thought they could win no matter how they conducted the trial. In their arrogance, however, they committed the biggest blunder you can commit in a bench trial: they pissed off the judge.
And so they lost a case the government never intended to win.
The 1994 Consent Decree is what I refer to. That's the one that Judge Sporkin rejected for failing to meet Tunney Act requirements of serving the public interest. As later events demonstrated, Sporkin was right, and the Appeals Court that overturned his order was wrong.
"The" Court case was brought by the federal government. The assorted attorneys general brought their own case which were rolled into the federal case. Now answer me this, Twiddle Dee:
What happened to all of those state actions once the federal government brought it's case? Do you remember the 9 states who objected to the settlement? How far did their demands for stiffer punishment get them?
The Feds did Microsoft a big favor: Instead of 20 states, they fought one Federal Government. Microsoft being Microsoft, they thought they could win no matter how they conducted the trial. In their arrogance, however, they committed the biggest blunder you can commit in a bench trial: they pissed off the judge.
And so they lost a case the government never intended to win.
dinotrac:
I did as you suggested and went back over the timeline.
You're right, the entire case of the DoJ, excluding the punishment phase, lies within Clinton's term. Only the deadlocked FTC investigation that triggered the DoJ's involvement and the punishment phase spanned the Bush and Bush terms (Sr. and Jr., respectively).
Now about that sweetheart deal -- I'm guessing you call it that because it was so narrowly targetted at OEM contracts and easily side-stepped. All the stuff that Sporkin pointed out that the DoJ didn't include in the complaint looked like juicy, low-hanging fruit, to my non-lawyer eyes.
History does show Sporkin to be right about the '94 consent decree being inadequate. The appeals court was right, IMO, to not allow him to take over what is supposed to be the DoJ's job, though, regardless of how obviously the DoJ screwed up that job. (I would appreciate your view of that).
I did as you suggested and went back over the timeline.
You're right, the entire case of the DoJ, excluding the punishment phase, lies within Clinton's term. Only the deadlocked FTC investigation that triggered the DoJ's involvement and the punishment phase spanned the Bush and Bush terms (Sr. and Jr., respectively).
Now about that sweetheart deal -- I'm guessing you call it that because it was so narrowly targetted at OEM contracts and easily side-stepped. All the stuff that Sporkin pointed out that the DoJ didn't include in the complaint looked like juicy, low-hanging fruit, to my non-lawyer eyes.
History does show Sporkin to be right about the '94 consent decree being inadequate. The appeals court was right, IMO, to not allow him to take over what is supposed to be the DoJ's job, though, regardless of how obviously the DoJ screwed up that job. (I would appreciate your view of that).
> In their arrogance, however, they committed the biggest blunder you can commit in a bench trial: they pissed off the judge.
Obvious perjury and contempt for the process will do that. Do you suppose the SCO management was paying attention at the time? I know Boise was, so you have to wonder why his firm would have taken the case (absent flat out lying by his client, which I won't discount).
In general, I'd say your analysis is correct.
Obvious perjury and contempt for the process will do that. Do you suppose the SCO management was paying attention at the time? I know Boise was, so you have to wonder why his firm would have taken the case (absent flat out lying by his client, which I won't discount).
In general, I'd say your analysis is correct.
grouch -
I agree with you that the Appeals Court was right. Sporkin was completely correct in his assessment of the decree, but the government would NEVER get anything done if the courts stepped in every tine something simply sucked.
jdixon -
I'm beginning to wonder if anybody anywhere has a memory any more.
I can't decide which is worse:
a) The possibility that nobody bothers to learn from history or,
b) that they are so arrogant as to believe everyone who went before was stupid and that they are smart enough to get away with all this crap.
I agree with you that the Appeals Court was right. Sporkin was completely correct in his assessment of the decree, but the government would NEVER get anything done if the courts stepped in every tine something simply sucked.
jdixon -
I'm beginning to wonder if anybody anywhere has a memory any more.
I can't decide which is worse:
a) The possibility that nobody bothers to learn from history or,
b) that they are so arrogant as to believe everyone who went before was stupid and that they are smart enough to get away with all this crap.
Quoting:The possibility that nobody bothers to learn from history
For most people in the world, an obvious given.
History sure is a funny thing. I had forgotten some significant details. (Thanks for the push, dinotrac).
From the Court of Appeals ruling that dinotrac referred to, footnote 10., http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0200/0233.htm
"10. Amici also contend without explanation that the decree contains a "loophole" by which a next-generation operating system can be taken outside the scope of the decree if Microsoft sells it "bundled" with an applications program. We perceive no interpretation of the decree's definition of covered products which would allow such a result."
That was June 16, 1995. By August, 1995 the decree was entered. Two years later, the DoJ filed a contempt of court complaint over Microsoft's requirement that OEMs ship IE with W95 in violation of the decree. By January, 1998, Microsoft decides to drop their attempt to bundle IE with W95; they just sidestep to W98. In May, 1998, an appeals court decides Microsoft can do that bundling with W98.
Kinda looks like the appeals court of '95 was a bit myopic in their perception of the "interpretation of the decree's definition of covered products". The appeals court of '98 did a little gymnastics to aid Microsoft in following the letter of the decree while completely violating its intent.
As shown in the DoJ's petition, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f1200/1236.htm
" E. Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement [with an OEM] in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon:
(i) the licensing of any other Covered Product, Operating System Software product or other product (provided, however, that this provision in and of itself shall not be construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing integrated products)."
There's the loophole to sidestep the purpose of the consent decree. Maybe "Amici" should have provided an explanation in '95, but would it have prevented the '95 court of appeals and the '98 court of appeals from assisting MS in slithering through the loophole?
From the Court of Appeals ruling that dinotrac referred to, footnote 10., http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0200/0233.htm
"10. Amici also contend without explanation that the decree contains a "loophole" by which a next-generation operating system can be taken outside the scope of the decree if Microsoft sells it "bundled" with an applications program. We perceive no interpretation of the decree's definition of covered products which would allow such a result."
That was June 16, 1995. By August, 1995 the decree was entered. Two years later, the DoJ filed a contempt of court complaint over Microsoft's requirement that OEMs ship IE with W95 in violation of the decree. By January, 1998, Microsoft decides to drop their attempt to bundle IE with W95; they just sidestep to W98. In May, 1998, an appeals court decides Microsoft can do that bundling with W98.
Kinda looks like the appeals court of '95 was a bit myopic in their perception of the "interpretation of the decree's definition of covered products". The appeals court of '98 did a little gymnastics to aid Microsoft in following the letter of the decree while completely violating its intent.
As shown in the DoJ's petition, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f1200/1236.htm
" E. Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement [with an OEM] in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon:
(i) the licensing of any other Covered Product, Operating System Software product or other product (provided, however, that this provision in and of itself shall not be construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing integrated products)."
There's the loophole to sidestep the purpose of the consent decree. Maybe "Amici" should have provided an explanation in '95, but would it have prevented the '95 court of appeals and the '98 court of appeals from assisting MS in slithering through the loophole?
grouch:
In fairness to the courts, this problem extended (and extends) well beyond Microsoft. In the best of cases, laws and legal action tend to be the worst way to do much of anything. In the case of advancing technology, the law tends to blow chunks. Not only is it continually playing catch-up, but law-makers and judges alike vary widely in their technical sophistication. Remember - courts are used to applying established precedents and principles, not breaking new ground.
In fairness to the courts, this problem extended (and extends) well beyond Microsoft. In the best of cases, laws and legal action tend to be the worst way to do much of anything. In the case of advancing technology, the law tends to blow chunks. Not only is it continually playing catch-up, but law-makers and judges alike vary widely in their technical sophistication. Remember - courts are used to applying established precedents and principles, not breaking new ground.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Please put a someone on the story about Microsoft's power play in Massachusetts. It seems like improper dealings have buttressed Microsoft's monopoly.
Governor Mit Romney got rear ended by Gates.
I'm also concerned about Microsoft's relationship to the Tom DeLay matter. It seems one of DeLay's trips to Europe was arranged and paid for by Microsoft's lobbyists.
Thank you,
Tom Adelstein