On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Jeffry Smith wrote:
> > They are hoping to get a sympathetic panel. See above, plus the new panel
> > will have the full trial testimony available.
>
> <IANAL>
>
> Actually, I think Microsoft is hoping to delay things as much as possible,
> to buy time for something else: For the past six months, Microsoft has been
> pouring money into Washington, DC, like it was water. They've gone from being
> more-or-less politically apathetic to being one of the most active companies
> in the lobby area. It is fairly obvious to anyone what they are trying to do:
>
> Microsoft broke the law. They have been caught. So, they are paying to
> have the law changed.
>
> Fifty billion dollars buys a lot of congressmen.
>
> Don't forget, too, that we've got a lot of Republicans in office right now,
> and thanks to Bill "Screw Around" Clinton, the Democrats have likely lost the
> White House, too. And Republicans have never been great fans of anti-trust
> law.
>
I beg to differ - Teddy Roosevelt was one of the biggest backers of
anti-trust. Of course he was also an environmentalist. No one can
claim the republicans can't change their tune.
> I'll bet anyone a nickel that, by the time the case gets to the supreme
> court, the law will have changed and MS will no longer be guilty.
>
(insert obligitory IANAL)
Except that that's too late. They've already been tried & found guilty. BTW:
Supreme
Court will probably hear this case early next term (Oct). Elections
in Oct, politicians take office in Jan. Then, to find MS not guilty
would require throwing out the Sherman & Clayton acts, that have stood
for 100 years. The only reason for throwing them out is the MS case,
and despite everything, I think too blatent of a pandering to MS would
hurt most politicians more than they want. I expect you'll hear a lot
of screaming, cutting of DoJ budget kid of stuff, etc.
Now, they could go for dropping prosecution. However, note that the
IBM & AT&T trials lasted for over 10 years each, through multiple
administrations. It's hard to ignore a conviction.
Final aspect is that there are state attorneys general also suing. Sure,
MS buys off DoJ. Now there's these guys. Oh, by the way. They've
been found guilty. This opens it to private lawsuits.
They may luck out. However, they're taking some huge gambles, and I'm
noticing public opinion turning. Bill's continual "we've done nothing
wrong, we've done nothing wrong, we've done nothing wrong" in the face
of evidence is, I think, starting to cause second looks. In addition,
they're faced with the same problems IBM had in the late 70's, early
80's - being so distracted and hampered by the process that their
competitors are able to use the action against them.
> If you were a judge, even an appeals judge who dislikes anti-trust action,
> how would *you* feel if someone claimed that you (and your entire profession)
> were an ignorant outsider with nothing good to contribute?
>
> Not a good way to make friends.
>
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
Remember: friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.
> </IANAL>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Smith Technical Sales Consultant Mission Critical Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:603.930.9379 fax:978.446.9470
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought for today: "Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..."
-- Professor in the UCB physics department
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
