IP: Microsoft "profoundly dangerous to the rule of law" - Boston Globe

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>From: "Rob Raisch" <info@raisch.com>
>To: "Dave Farber" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>
>
>(Dave, I include the last several paragraphs of this Globe staff piece as I
>believe it raises an important issue related to the Microsoft trial: one of
>"techno-libertarian dissent...to undermine the authority of the government."
>/rr)
>
>ECONOMIC PRINCIPALS:
>Falsus in omnibus
>By David Warsh, Globe Staff, 6/11/2000
>
>Boston Globe Online -
>http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/163/business/Falsus_in_omnibus%2b.shtml
>
>[snip]
>
>The Microsoft trial has turned into a remarkable contest, one of those
>epochal events whose outcome affects the course of history itself. No longer
>is it simply just a monopoly trial, like that of AT&T 20 years ago. Instead,
>it is civil authority itself that has become the issue.
>
>Bill Gates and his entourage have come to represent a certain kind of
>techno-libertarian dissent that has grown up in the United States since the
>1970s. During the antitrust investigation in 1995, there was a lot of loose
>talk within the company about moving offshore if the US government ruled
>against them. Microsoft signed a consent decree to end the case, then
>blithely announced to the world the agreement meant nothing.
>
>When the Justice Department moved forcefully against the company for
>violating its earlier agreement, Microsoft stopped at almost nothing in its
>attempt to undermine the authority of the government.
>
>The company flouted the judge's rulings. It made extensive donations to the
>Republican party, then appealed to GOP legislators to cut the Justice
>Department's budget in hopes of crippling its ability to pursue the case. It
>hired lobbyists to pressure presidential candidates. It paid for torrents of
>sponsored research. It invented Orwellian mantras (''This case is about
>Microsoft's right to innovate.'') It stalled at every turn.
>
>How will Microsoft's conduct be thought of in terms of the history of the
>decade? As being profoundly dangerous to the rule of law. The case itself
>ultimately will be determined in the courts, of course. But its
>unprecedented attempt to purchase immunity in the administrative and
>legislative branches of government must be tried in the broader court of
>public opinion.
>
>--
>Rob Raisch - lead analyst @ www.raisch.com
>Muscular Business Intelligence