So when MS does it, it's okay, but when Oracle does it isn't? You sound
like what you are trying to argue against. What Oracle did was pay for
"research" that is trivially verifiable, and thus the payee doesn't
really matter. The research MS is supposed to have paid for is much more
involved, and thus the taint is harder to disprove. That's why even the
appearance of taint should be avoided. I wish these people had done so,
as then There wouldn't be that nagginf question.
And a think tank, at least in this form, is not directly a political
organization, or shouldn't be. After all the point is not to find
evidence to support your position, but to find which position the
evidence supports. Or at least it should be.
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000, Duncan Frissell wrote:
> At 04:39 PM 6/28/00 -0700, Colin A. Reed wrote:
> >On the other hand, I made the statement that taking money can produce the
> >appearence of a conflict of interest. I have also stated that in my
> >opinion you had to be either stupid or crooked to take the money. The
> >reasoning behind the latter should be obvious. The reasoning behind the
> >former should be as well, at this point.
>
> Are you people mentally defective, or what? All non-profits take money
> from somebody. If they didn't they wouldn't exist. In practice they take
> money from anyone who gives it. If they didn't they'd be stupid. Fund
> raising takes most of their efforts as it is. Why would they possibly turn
> down money? A think tank is a *political* organization. It argues
> policy. No money, no arguments.
>
> The Independent Institute was founded 14 years ago (about the time MSFT
> went public). The National Taxpayers Union was founded in 1969 (before the
> invention of the micro-computer. The NTU is a conservative/libertarian
> group. The II is a libertarian group. Both opposed antitrust laws before
> MSFT gave them a dime. CATO supported MSFT before it gave them any money
> and in spite of the fact that Scott McNeely (a big MSFT foe) was a big
> supporter (back when he was still a libertarian). There is no evidence
> that libertarian groups supported antitrust laws before MSFT. Antitrust
> laws are one of the most hated institutions for libertarians.
>
> When the Samurai Warrior hired Clinton's Secret Police to do black bag jobs
> on the political opposition, he was "paying for research". MSFT (which had
> never before given any money to libertarians) (because Mr. Bill is/was a
> liberal democrat) was not buying research it was trying to help its friends
> and publicize their views.
>
> When Bill Clinton gave Main Justice money to build a case against MSFT that
> was "buying research" as well.
>
> MSFTs expenditures were a simple 1st amendment matter. Larry & Clinton are
> practicing political thuggery using burglary on the one hand and fascist
> economic intervention on the other. Mr. Bill did not breach the
> peace. Larry's targets could have equally used deadly force to kill his
> operatives during their burglaries and Clinton's thugs can also be opposed
> by any means necessary under the founding principles of the nation.
>
> Making some contributions to think tanks is well within the permitted range
> of responses.
>
> DCF
>
>
