Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

MS Lobbies to Cut DOJ Antitrust Budget 278

Posted by CmdrTaco from the you-gotta-be-kidding-me dept.
Forward The Light Br sent us a washington post article that talks about (no I'm not kidding) Microsoft Lobbying the Government to cut funding to the DOJs Antitrust department. I'm pretty amazed by this one.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Lobbies to Cut DOJ Antitrust Budget More

MS Lobbies to Cut DOJ Antitrust Budget

Comments Filter:
  • Good for you guys.
    I still wouldn't move to Holland or practically any other place in Europe with possible exeption of GB or Switzerland.
    It is nice and dandy now there but who knows when 1940s will repeat all over again.


  • "the $51,000 is the amount Micros~1 has donated to the Senator's re-election campaign. Quite different from direct payments into the Senator's personal account (or is it, really?). Often in the U.S. elections, whichever side spends the most cash (advertisements on TV are expensive), wins most of the time."

    Still sounds like corruption to me. The only reason companies like MS give money to politicians is because they expect something in return. Though the money is spent on elections, the senator has a clear interest in it since he will be reelected and receive the status and salary that is part of the job of a senator.

    "Also, the U.S. has campaign contribution limits"

    Yeah right, if there's one law with holes in it its probably that law.

    "it will take twenty years"

    It will take forever because no politician has any interest in changing the system. It will probably get worse.
  • What are you saying exactly? You can't complain about your senator unless you run yourself? That anybody who disagrees with you must not have voted? where do you get this from?
  • When did I claim to be a Libertarian? I respect the movement, true, but I'd never follow it.

    And yeah; I don't like big, intrusive governments. But sometimes there are things that only a government has the resources to do. Keeping juggernauts like Microsoft in line is one of them.
  • Considering that the Gov't is very likely a major customer, and one with very particular procedures at that, why not?

    Various parts of the Gov't are, no doubt, major customers. It makes sense to take that into account. {shrug}
  • here in austria political partys get their money
    according to their votes at the last election, from the state. this means they are to a large degree independent of corporate money. as far as i know this is the case
    in most european countries..

    the US would be wise in establishing a similar system.. but of course all the companys that are bribing the government there now would not find that nice.. and since i think their influence is already too strong this will not happen.

    conclusion: the U.S. is not a democracy but already owend by big corporations..

    greetings from vienna,

    mond.

  • "The necessary precondition of a coercive monopoly is closed entry--the barring of all competing producers form a given field. THis can be accomplised only by an act of government intervention, in the form of special regulations, subsidies or franchises."

    I'm confused. Suppose Microsoft were to simply refuse to sell Microsoft products to anyone that sold non-Microsoft software? Where is the government intervention in that? Do you argue that with a desktop share of over 90 percent that such an action would quickly result in a closed entry market? Do you think anything but the threat of anti-trust is keeping Microsoft from doing that?

    They tried exactly that already in the pre-installed OS and browser market. With some success I might add.
  • Words fail to describe just how much I loathe the evil M$ organization. They are uniquely worthy of being despised.
  • This system was deliberately designed to prevent corruption. It deals with this problem in very unique way. You are allowed to "currupt" politician as long as it is public knowledge.
  • Non profit orgs are technically "corporations" so under such a law there would be no way to organize lobbies by "the people" and I can't see individuals flying out to DC to lobby their rep. One could argue that a valid work-around would be to only allow non-profit orgs to lobby. Then all you would get is a bunch of non-profits spawned off and supported mainly by corporations to do their lobbing. There is always a loop hole - the current system has flaws, but lets not throw it all away because it doesn't always work for you - this is like making up the rules to a game as you go. What's better is to know what reps are recieving funds/gifts from what entities - in a way this is a blessing because you can cut through all the crap and see where she/he really stands on issues (money speaks louder than words). Although, I don't know of any sites out there that will give you this info - anyone know?

  • Re:lol! (Score:2)

    by Suydam ( 881 )
    They're not just trying to "get things their way". They could be attempting one of the following things I thin:
    • Win over public favor. - By saying "the governemtn is spending to much. cut government spending!" you win over the marjority of americans. Especially when it's on a subject that most of them don't see as all that useful in their daily lives (flame retardant: I said most).

    • MS THinks they'll win the current case, wants to prevent further action down the road by hamstringing the gov't's anti-trust dogs. - Sure. This could be the answer. If you're into the paranoia aspect of MS as a global world power trying to take over everything, then this makes the most sense. But I don't buy it.

    • Instead, I think they're trying to turn the attention away from their actual business practices, and on to something less dangerout to their monopoly. - By getting people to talk about the governemtn, it's spending, and why MS is giving them money, you'l divert public attention away from the case at hand, and into the realms of ethics (as in corp's giving gov't money) and maybe eventhe realm of "boy! MS has never really been a strong lobby before...wonder why they started now."
    Either way, I don't think it matters much in the big picture....the anti-trust unit of the DOJ is going to be all fine and good for years to come.

  • Take some political science classes people! America is not a democracy - its a republic. I don't mean to nit-pick, but this is much the same as the crackers/hackers thing.
  • So tell us all how a monopoly can be considered a free market, Buttercup?

    The market is free from regulatory pressure from the governing body. Governing bodies typically arise from some kind of armed struggle, and then those bodies impose taxes and other restrictions upon the marketplace to suit their invasive purposes.

    In the United States, we established our own government through rebellion, so we don't have the yoke of some other people about our necks. Our market has been mostly free to do as it will, and the result has been a country richer than any other in this world.

    "Monopoly" is a word invented to describe what some consider to be an unbalanced market phenomenon. Whether or not it is unbalanced, it does not threaten the freedom of the market because it is _inside_ the market and subject to the same conditions, laws, and influences which affect everyone else.

    Explain to us how the government cannot be involved when the monopolist relies on the coercive power of that same government to enforce its contracts --those famous anti-competitive exclusionary contracts?

    Actually, contracts are entered voluntarily and kept voluntarily. When a contract is breached it's discussed by the involved parties. When a solution cannot be reached, then and only then is the matter elevated to public arbitration through the court system.

    Most Americans, these days, make the mistake of thinking that one "goes to court" to win something or get something. When you "go to court" you have publically stated that you cannot reach a compromise and you are submitting the matter to the will of the court. It is the voluntary act of filing a suit that hands the situation over to the government. Until then, it is _your_ responsibility.

    No, the gov is always already involved, and if it does not curb monopoly abuses it in effect enforces them, it passively lends its weight to leverage the monopolist's arm-twisting.

    I don't know what legal commentary led you to that conclusion, but it's a crock.

    You're pretty much all over the place with your argument, so I'll leave the rest until you can sort out what you're trying to say.

    MJP

  • lol! (Score:1)

    by heh2k ( 84254 )
    of course they want it cut! i have to say, it really doesn't surprise me. what do you expect from MS? they'll do anything to get things their way.
  • Why do you think it's hard as hell to get a brand-name computer without M$/Windows?

    I have several of them, all made by a company called "Apple." You can also get machines from Sun, and there are a few vendors that will sell you PC's with Linux preinstalled. At one point there were also machines from NeXT, Be, and several others.

    And why do you think it's as hard to get Athlon mobos or why companies like Dell will never sell machines based on the Athlon when it's the fastest (Wintel-class) processor around?

    Partly because it's not as fast as it was hyped up to be. Partly because AMD can't produce in the volume and with the reliability that Intel does, and partly because they have pre-existing contracts with Intel. But if AMD continues to do well, they *will* gain market share. Why do you think they're doing it?

    Or why isn't FireWire ubiquitous and replacing EIDE as a storage/everything else interface??? (I'd kill to see a mobo using USB for input and FW for mass storage. Our lives would be much more simpler, IMO.)

    Again, get a Mac. They still use IDE, but they also have first-class firewire support, and they use USB for input. The main reason people still use IDE is that it's dirt-cheap. As Firewire matures, we may see more people using it.

    This is why governemental (sp?) action is required, to reel in those two techno-bullies, to give a chance to the competition. If nothing is done ASAP, we'll soon be stuck using only M$ applications and utilities on top of a M$ OS running on top of an Intel-powered machine using Intel chipsets and God knows what else to browse the M$-Internet to see M$-approved contents. You'll never see another rukus like what Tom Pabst (sp???) made when he found out that Intel was/still is pressuring OEM mobo makers not to make Athlon mobos. Or you'll never see a web site like www.billwatch.net to see Bill G.'s latest antics. And you'll have to pay Bill G. a tax on anything you do on the 'net (buying, viewing, etc.). It can't get more Orwellian than that.

    This is complete nonsense. Even if the DoJ drops the case and promises to never bother Microsoft again, Microsoft could not maintain their dominance of the market. Linux and Solaris are eating away at NT's market share. Apple's doing well. Many power users are switching to Linux on their home PC's, Be and OS/2 are available. In short, Microsoft does not have a monopoly. The same is true on the hardware side. Not only do you have two major x86 choices (Intel and AMD) but you have other chip lineages to choose from (Alpha, PPC, SPARC's, ARM, etc.)

    Now you might say that Microsoft has a near-monopoly on the home Intel market, but that's a pretty silly market definition. Of course if you define "market" narrowly enough you can prove that anyone has a monopoly on anything. But if you look at the actual choices available today, there are a *lot* of them. I haven't touched a Microsoft product in a week, and I use computers on a daily basis. They simply don't have a monopoly.

    The real shame is not that M$ and Intel have accumulated that much power, it's that they've done it in front of everyone else and no one did anything before it was too late. Oh, well.

    Too late for what? Is the government going to break into my house and confiscate my Mac? Is it going to shut down Linux-only PC vendors? Is it going to drive Sun or SGI out of business? What is this great catastrophe that you are dreading if the government doesn't do something?
  • Given the ability to modify the Constitution this seems a pointless distinction. "I have to do what X says but I can change X to let it allow me to do what I want."

    If government and law are separate then who enforces the law if there is no government? Who makes the law if there is no government? Who adjudicates law if there is no government? To enforce law requires so-called "coercive" power. I thought only government had "coercive" power -- everything else being free association? If someone other than "government" says you broke a law and they use coercive power to punish you how are they not government? If they have no power to punish you how is it a law?

    I guess I'm just confused and hope you can explain things to me.
  • The $51,000 to Slade Gorton does look very bad and he may regret this during election time. However, I'll bet this has more to do with the fact that Sen. Gorton is from Wash (same as MS) and if MS were to get broken up it would probably cause a bit of an economic problem in his state. So I don't think it's as corrupt as it looks (BTW - it was 51,000 to his campain fund - not personal account, which would be illegal). In any case, it still looks bad - I just don't think its really as bad as it looks.

  • Of course they did, what's your point? And what does this have to do with anti-trust activity? You are attempting to snow the conversation, apparently.

    I am trying to snow the conversation? You are the one who spuriously throws in the comment about what "Countless scholars and professionals" think knowing full well that much of that is simple Microsoft propaganda. By using such ambiguous terms like "Countless scholars" you give the impression that many or most scholars are in agreement with your rather minority position that antitrust laws are oppressive.

    You also were careful not to address my gibe about the benefits of antitrust legislation. It appears you seem to think that nothing was wrong with Rockefeller's Standard Oil or that the breakup of AT&T hasn't actually benefitted consumers and the economy. Isn't only picking out the points you want to address in an argument a way to "snow" the conversation?

    "Manipulate the government into leaving them alone", now that is expert spin control. The ironic thing is, I totally agree. I would love to "manipulate the government into leaving me alone".

    Criminals bribing judges are manipulating the government into leaving them alone, Chinese agents close to the Clinton administration apparently manipulated the government into leaving an agent at Los Alamos alone and Microsoft attempts to manipulate the legislature to change the law to leave them alone.

    Microsoft is not a victim here. They signed a consent decree in 1995 agreeing that they would change their business practices and they didn't, in fact they committed even worse offenses. If they didn't agree with the consent decree, they shouldn't have signed it. Had they took a principled stand in 1995, maybe you would have an argument. As it stands, they were caught in the act, they can't win in a court of law, so they try to influence the legislature to wiggle out from under the consequences of their actions.

    Oh yes, Microsoft is a bastion of principle here.

  • Microsoft makes no secret of the fact that it takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles. Countless scholars and professionals have weighed in with agreement, and even Scott McNealy -- outside of his vested interest in the downfall of Microsoft -- holds to strong free-market principles.

    Funny how principles change when you realize that the government can be manipulated into doing your dirty work...

    MJP
  • One difference is that I haven't seen any evidence that the other companies resorted to paying huge donations to politicians in order to get the DOJ to take action against Microsoft. I also haven't seen any evidence that the other companies used politicians that they had funded to try to influence the budgets of agencies that were doing things that would influence their businesses.

    There is a difference here in which companies are doing lobbying in a way that is ethical, and what Microsoft is doing. I am continually surprised by the lengths that Microsoft apologists will go to bend over far enough to make it look like what Microsoft is doing is no different than what other companies do. Even though it is sometimes true that individual actions by Microsoft may not be that much further than what other companies have done, I can't think of any company who so consistantly and determinedly pushes the boundaries of ethical behavior in so many ways. Even the IBM of the 70's and 80's who also found itself involved with anti-trust proceedings in general seemed to conduct themselves in a less ethically challenged way than Microsoft does. IBM has gone a long way towards cleaning up their kitchen, and lets hope that Microsoft can and will follow their example and work towards becoming a good, clean corporate citizen.

  • No, really, c'mon. You have to say this for M$, they are patient. Like being run over by a glacier (Ask any OS/2 developer). They are just plannning ahead for the next phase, when whatever exists after the end of the current antitrust litigation moves on to dominate another market. They just mean to win next time, and since they have 90% of all the money in the world it can't hurt to spread some more around DC -- might help? This is why I'm not to hot on the comprehensive test-ban treaty: without reliable nuclear weapons how can the United States defend itself against Redmond?
    --
  • I agree. Here in Sweden no politican would get away with that.... The media watches VERY closely on finacial matters... indeed. Lobbyig = big bribes
  • MS Has set the standard for arrogance since the days of "Pirates..". They have ABSOLUTLY no shame!
  • What does China have to do with anything? For the record, China is not anywhere close to a free market. That's one of the reasons they are so poor.

  • Microsoft's latest efforts on Capitol Hill will have little or no impact on the
    department's antitrust case against the software giant, and for that reason
    they seem somewhat unusual. While companies regularly ask lawmakers to
    block federal agencies from implementing specific policies, it is more
    uncommon to seek an across-the-board cut in a department's budget,
    especially in the middle of a major court battle.

    This is an example of Microsoft's long range planning: gut the department now, then start acting up again.

    And nonprofit organizations that receive financial support from the
    company have also urged key congressional appropriators to limit spending for
    the division when they begin their final negotiations on the Justice Department
    budget, possibly as early as Monday.

    More "astroturf" style grassroots marketing.


    Well, all I can say is write your Congressdrones and complain.

  • Also, I might add, America contributes more financial aid to other nations than any other country in the world (including Canada).

    And the US has a higher GNP and higher population than most if not all other "first world" nations; do we contribute more financial aid as a percentage of GNP than any other developed country in the world - or are we, as I've seen claimed, closer to the bottom of that list?

  • Ha! (Score:3)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 ) on Friday October 15, 1999 @07:07AM (#1610973)
    MS Legal didn't ask MS Marketing about this one. Yeesh, what a stupid idea - not only will it fail to achieve the desired effect, but the resulting whirlwind of press surrounding the issue will a) distance politicians who might otherwise be sympathetic, b) create alot of bad press for M$, and c) most importantly, provide humor-deprived geeks around the world a reason to forward the story across the globe... which will cause d) the network to become overloaded due to all the forwarding going on, annoying e) the pr0n downloaders who will retaliate by winnuking everybody on their segment which will be picked up by f) MTV, who will claim they're the greatest hacker ever!

    Probably not the chain reaction they wanted.

    --

  • What we need is a Slashdot for politics (Score:3)

    by Fastolfe ( 1470 ) on Friday October 15, 1999 @10:13AM (#1610974)
    So long as the "authors" can remain unbiased (rare on Slashdot) and leave the bias to the comments and posts, I think a medium like that would be a great way to disseminate information about candidates and legislation.

    We desperately need a place where people can go to get ALL of the information about election candidates (instead of just the biased advertising we see on TV) in one easy place. Nobody watches debates anymore because they tend to be long-winded and full of BS and evasion. Have standardized templates for describing candidates as unbiased as is possible.

    Likewise with upcoming legislation. On Slashdot whenever we see an "alert" about some evil piece of legislation, it's usually the result of somebody reading a biased/uninformed take on the legislation, reporting it to Slashdot, which then takes it and posts an "article" with at least as much bias as the original report. Only in the comments do we see people say, "Uhh, this isn't as bad as you guys seem to make it out to be. Why don't you read the legislation first?" Ideally, a site like this would eliminate such confusion by providing a clear, concise plain-english description of the legislation. Phrases like "big brother" would be forbidden. Let the subsequent threads of comments be the bias.

    Have the site pay for itself via non-political advertising.

    I've been playing with this idea for a while, but nobody seems to think it's worth pursuing.. Unfortunately something like this is very difficult to just "start up" due to the fact that it would need to cover a lot of stuff in as much depth as possible (which means we'd need legal and political experts behind us in some fashion (NOT for the purpose of editorializing or making predictions, but for understanding what it is we're seeing, etc.)).
  • I'm pretty amazed too...

    How could they (MS) believe that this wouldn't get out to the public?

    This can only do more damage to the company than this case has done allready...

    First posts sucks ;)
  • We defenseman too! Bah-dum-bum!

    Anyway, on a more serious note, I am a Libertarian, and we are also quite in support of less government intervention and greater freedom within markets.

    I don't understand where you come up with this junk that the U.S. would be in the Stone Age if we had totally free markets. Don't you understand that its the free market that facilitates progress, and the government that hinders it? ( remember when everything related to telephones had to be bought from AT&T? How about Network Solutions?). Lets take a look at the opposite extreme of free-markets and take a look at Socialism... doesn't quite give you the warm and fuzzies does it?

    --
    PanDuh!

  • And anti-MS zealots have it in spades :)
  • At least, none of the Americans here should be surprised.

    For those of you who do not live in the USA, most of you probably live in countries where companies and wealthy individuals are either forbidden or restricted in their contributions to politicians and their parties (assuming you live a nation with a partisan democracy.) In the US, this was once half true. Until 1974, there were some very heavy restrictions on giving to American politicians. Most campaigns - even those of big, wealthy, well-known candidates - ran on a shoestring. Many American politicians were wealthy, but running for Federal office frequently cost them everything they had. Other people and companies found it very difficult to directly, or even indirectly, give to parties or candidates.

    In 1974, the elections law changed and a very big loophole was created: anyone could give as much money as they wanted to political parties (but not candidates) and organisations interested in particular issues could make nearly unlimited gifts to particular candidates who supported their cause. During the Reagan administration (81-89, and 89-93 if you count the uninspiring Bush administration), many of the remaining restraints on lobbying (cutting deals directly with elected politicians) and campaign funding (buying political favours in advance) were loosened, and a Supreme Court ruling in the early 90's (the year eludes me right now) determined that political contributions were a form of free speech and could not be denied under the law.

    The result was a near complete takeover of the government by well funded interests. Many of these were corporations and wealthy individuals, but some were large pressure groups like AARP (the lobby for the interests of the elderly.) In this political climate, it became necessary, if any kind of functioning government was to exist, to displace the centres of power to unelected officials, and state and local governments. Most civil servants have far greater restrictions on what kinds of favours they can receive, and are require to make public disclosures of the gifts they get.

    That is part of why the Federal Reserve Bank has come to act in the same capacity that, in most countries, an elected minister of commerce or industry might act. It is also part of the reason why the military and law enforcement agencies are so frequently able to act without legal restraint.

    This system makes no sense to most outsiders. I will tell the non-Americans here that what is amazing is not that the systems works so badly, but that it works at all. However, American government is a lot like American football (the one with the egg-shaped ball): if you read the rules on paper, they will make no sense, but once you start to watch it in action, the logic begins to appear.

    America is, quite simply, a place where money is usually the only thing that counts in governance. If you have money, you can lobby government, contribute to campaigns, get your ideas heard, and if all else fails, mount a media campaign to get the public riled up. As a last ditch effort, you can always use the courts to try to block enforcement of whatever policies you oppose.

    And if you are poor, few media will cover your interests in any depth, your access to government is minimal, and you have little genuine legal recourse.

    Now, many of you will say, "But it's no different here." Trust me, it is different. This kind of activity is far more common in the US than anywhere else in the world.

    This process takes years to run to completion or to create stable policies, but eventually, it does - after a fashion - work. Americans have undertaken a political experiment as breathtaking and as pervasive the original American revolution: they have created a free market government. If you have the money, and a policy is worth enough time and trouble to you, you can make it happen. Government policy has become a market average of all those campaign contributions, expensive lobbying, lawsuits and media campaigns.

    In this context, it is hardly surprising when the largest company in the world (in terms of market capitalisation) tries to buy not simply changes in policy, but a weakening of law enforcement when they are in trouble. Defense contractors lobby directly for more guns and fighter planes when they need the orders, regardless of real need for the weapons. Drug companies lobby for weaker enforcement of the food and drug laws. Car companies lobby for weaker gas milage restrictions so they can sell expensive SUV's. None of what Microsoft is trying to do is shocking or unusual.

    Microsoft will fail so long as those interests who favour continuing enforcment of anti-trust laws have more money and time to spend on it than Microsoft has. Microsoft will succeed if others facing trust problems (like MCI-Worldcom, AT+T, Boeing, and others) have more money on their side.

    Full disclosure: I am not American, but I've lived here on and off more than half of my life, since I was 9 years old. I speak the language, I went to school here and I've worked here. I have no great love for the US government, but I do have a great deal of love for the fat paycheck I get working here. I know America as well as most Americans do. Nonetheless, it's their country and if they want free market government, that's their choice. Make no mistake, Americans who are sufficiently aware of poltics to vote all know that their government works this way. Unlike a dictatorship, this is something they have a genuine choice about.

    But, do keep what I've said in mind when you next ask yourselves, "Why do Americans allow these things that seem so plainly dumb?" Remember this, the next time a politician in your country tells you that you ought to be more like Americans (and I especially mean you Brits here) just what kind of system they are talking about.
  • Note how general this is -- he doesn't specifically state he wants DoJ off Microsoft's back; the timing simply happens to be coincidental, I guess. Yeah, right. This Rep Dan Miller smells pretty corrupt.

    Excuse me? He takes a position on an issue you disagree with, and now he's "corrupt?" Where does that come from?

    If he really believes what he is saying, he should introduce legislation to repeal antitrust laws.

    I wish he would. But I don't think there's enough support for that to pass. And government schools have had too many years to drill the antitrust rationale into our heads in "history" class for the voters to be easily persuaded. A poorly enforced law is worse than no law, but a well-enforced bad law is even worse.

    Having laws without enforcement is a very bad thing, because they'll just get selectively enforced and used as a tool to suppress whoever doesn't play ball.

    Exactly. I don't think it's a coincidence that the strongest Senate supporters for the antitrust action are from the home state of some of Microsoft's competitors. Antitrust law is so vague and overreaching that literally anything a successful company does is a crime. The DoJ only prosecutes what it sees as the worst "abuses," but the legal and political fads change with each new administration, so companies never really know when they'll be the next target.
  • Does no one remember that Netscape and Sun pulled exactly the same kind of stunts to get this whole thing started? Netscape has been pushing for antitrust action against Microsoft for years. How is that OK, but when Microsoft fights back it's suddenly corruption? Does having more money than anyone else subject them to a different set of rules?
  • What, like when foreign contributors funnel money into campaigns, and members of the party at all levels (in DoJ, and Congress) block the investigation, by coaching witnesses on when to take the Fifth, and not bothering to look until witnesses have had time to flee the country? That's not a special interest?

    Do unions, which spend their dues on donations -- even when the members don't want 'em used that way -- meet your definition, as well?

    It's done at all levels, ranging from international (e.g. "recognize that `country` and we'll cut off trade", or "support us in the Sec. Council and we'll give you an oil deal"), to national (you don't give money to candidates who'd go *against* you, after all...), to local...

    Fact is, 'tho, it's a drop in the bucket. Even if transferred all of its cash reserves to the Treasury, it wouldn't be *that* much compared to the Federal budget. A donation of $51K is peanuts except at the individual-legislator level, and there are too many that wouldn't be caught dead supporting MS here (like Orrin Hatch, whose motivations are similar to that of Gorton's...) unless they actually agree in principle that anti-trust stuff should be repealed. Money *can't* necessarily buy off somebody who's ready to lop off yer head. Now, if you're dealing with somebody who does not have to uphold any principles, because he hasn't bothered to actually ennunciate any (or because the people already consider him an unethical SOB), that's different...

    As for donations in general, most of what's allowed is "soft money"; direct contributions to campaigns are limited, but "soft money" is not; arguably the latter should be regulated far more strongly.
  • While Congress has pretty much discretionary power over its normal legislative syllabus, the Founders felt they had made the Constitutional amendment process so difficult to achieve that it couldn't be done without widespread, real support and enough time to allow elections to influence the matter. Unfortunately, I think they miscalculated. Among other travesties, we now have the direct election of Senators, which seriously breaks the check-balance represented by the Senate.

    As for the issue of law enforcement, anyone could be expected to "enforce" the law. Anyone could be hired to do it. In general, law was historically intended to provide protections, not privileges.

    Breaking the law and failing to provide restitution for your crime meant that you lost your protections and anyone (including your victim's family) could hunt you down and kill you. This is where we get the word "outlaw": a person who literally is _outside_ of the law and therefore is no longer protected by it.

    To enforce law requires so-called "coercive" power. I thought only government had "coercive" power -- everything else being free association?

    Yes, but that "coercive power" is allowable because the subject of that coercion has presumably forfeited his lawful protections by committing a grievous crime. This assumes that you mean enforcement of criminal codes.

    In cases of civil dispute, or Tort Law, the issue of enforcement takes on a somewhat different character.

    If someone other than "government" says you broke a law and they use coercive power to punish you how are they not government?

    Obviously, arbitration must needs be conducted by an "impartial" third-party of some sort. Historically, this was the responsibility of a local magistrate or judge, someone who shared in the community's standards and beliefs. This could be considered "government", from a certain perspective, but I don't see the relevance. What authority would such an arbitration body have to regulate the Marketplace?!

    If they have no power to punish you how is it a law?

    Law is not a police force, and it's not Judge Dredd. Law is simply the code that binds our actions. Most of us celebrate the Rule of Law that established our country (the Constitution) while we bemoan the bureaucratic Congressional code that, practically speaking, runs our lives.

    The executive branch is the enforcement branch that provides power to back up the bureaucracy. It is not, technically, law enforcement; it is rather the guarantor of the Federal government's wishes. At times, it suits the government to punish criminals and uphold the righteous (Romans 13) but at other times it suits the government to do quite the opposite.

    The Founders viewed government as the greatest threat to each man's health and wealth, which is why they framed the Constitution as a governmental restraint rather than a code of laws for the people. The greatest danger, the Founders knew, did not come from criminals, but from the armed agents of government who trade us their security for our freedom.

    MJP
  • Uhhh....AT&T Was a GOVERNMENT ENFORCED monopoly! Like Con Edison in New York, and Network Solutions. Think any differently now?

    Also, anti-trust issues have been raging for years before Bill Gates was even a gleam in his father's eye.. take my word for it. They are just the latest victim.

    PanDuh!

  • I can't seem to convince myself that this would be any worse than Al Gore heading it up.

    -B
  • Suppose Microsoft were to simply refuse to sell Microsoft products to anyone that sold non-Microsoft software? Where is the government intervention in that? Do you argue that with a desktop share of over 90 percent that such an action would quickly result in a closed entry market? Do you think anything but the threat of anti-trust is keeping Microsoft from doing that?

    No, anyone is free to run an alternative OS (Mac OS, Linux, FreeBSD, Be, NeXT) and run whatever software they like on it. The reason Microsoft doesn't do that is that in non-Microsoft shops, such a policy would prevent them from gaining market share, since it would require extra effort to make other software interoperate with MS software. And such a policy would serve as an impetus to have people switch to those other OS's in protest of MS actions (as happened recently. Both the Mac OS and Linux are gaining market share.)

    So no, closing Windows to outside firms would not be coercive, and moreover it would not be good business. OS makers badly need developers, as Apple has been discovering. no company can do everything itself.
  • Agreed. If you dislike the fact that companies are allowed to buy influence in your representatives, make it clear that you will not vote for somebody that takes the interests of a cash contributor over that of the normal constituents.

    Remember: No amount of cash can help an election candidate if nobody will vote for them.

    This all goes back to the whole lack of an informed public, which might not make this as effective as you'd hope, but if enough people write letters expressing this sentiment, you can bet your representatives will listen.
  • Unix has been around forever and hasn't really changed. MacOS has been around forever without really changing.

    I hope you're joking. What kind of change are you expecting? OS design has been steadily advancing, and modern Unices have a number of improvements over previous versions. Mac OS has undergone even more dramatic improvements, going from a single-user, feature starved system to a reasonably stable, multitasking, and full-feartured OS. In particular, in the last 10 years we have seen the following changes to the Mac platform.

    Color Quickdraw, Quicktime, Quicktime VR, Quickdraw 3D, and OpenGL.

    TrueType, Colorsync, and Applescript, text-to-speech, speech recognition.

    Steadily improving GUI, including updated "look and feel," elimination of most modal dialog boxes, superior color support even at low pixel depths, contextual menus, kick-ass theme support, improved Finder, etc.

    Modern, Open Transport-based networking, AppleShare (soon to be TCP/IP native), Applescript over the internet, vastly improved PPP tools.

    Support for USB, 10/100 BT ethernet, firewire, wireless networking, etc.

    I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot of stuff. In addition to that, Apple will within 6 months be releasing OS X, which will feature a new graphics model, modern, Unix-derived OS internals, improved UI features, a better, object oriented set of API's, and loads of other goodies.

    I don't know what you're expecting OS's to do. Today's OS's are light-years ahead of what anyone had 10 years ago, and they show no sign of slowing down. The amount of innovation we've seen in OS's in the last 10 years would take 30 years in the automotive industry.

  • Actually $51,000 over 2 years is pretty much pocket change in the grand scheme of things. I doubt it swayed Gorton one way or another.

    As a Washington native I can say that Gorton would most likely have supported MS (and Boeing, and ...) even without their meager contribution.

    -B
  • If people like you had your way, we'd all still be in the freaking stone ages.

    That's an assertion that is as unfounded as it is, frankly, stupid.

    people would die young from industrial pollution of the air, land, and sea by mega-corporations

    I'm left wondering how the mega-corporations would get away with this when wrongful death suits were filed. Seeing as how a jury of our peers would award a settlement, I'd think it would get rather expensive to continue to infringe on other peoples' rights this way. Wouldn't you? Or hadn't you thought much about it, Captain Planet?

    http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Coase_World.h tml

    Sorry, bud, but "anything goes" capitalism is an unbelievably stupid idea, and I for one will fight it

    In other words, you will fight for your "right" to tell me what to do.

    even if that means getting attacked by extremist right wingers such as yourself and your buddies at Microsoft.

    Don't develop a persecution-complex, just yet. I don't know anybody who works for Microsoft, and I'm not going to "attack" you.

    MJP
  • The anti-trust laws that you seem to hate so much are the reason you can call the other side of the planet without taking out a morgage. The baby-Bells are huge *now*, how big would Bell have been if it hadn't been broken up? Would you be paying the rates you are now?

    AT&T was a government-enforced monopoly. It was illegal (and still is) to start a competing phone service. That has nothing to do with the free market.
  • The problem isn't with the big corporations, or the PACs, or even the corrupt politicians, the problem is with the whole system of campaigning. Right now no candidate can get elected without a major television/radio/newspaper ad blitz. And like any good advertiser they know that to get the most "bang for the buck" they need to hit a large as audience as is possible, which means catering to the lowest common denomater. So we get thousands of hours of very highly hyped, spinn-doctored crap every time there is an election. What, if any, solid beliefs the candidates have about real issues is lost in a storm of BS that even voters who are seriously looking for real info can't find any, much less the average voter. So we get a mix of negative ads (that merely turn voters off from the whole process) and sensational ads speaking passionately about controversial NON-issues (for god's sake we must protect the CHILDERN from, from...err from everything!!)

    How does all of this relate to money you ask? Well as we all know television air time is expesnive, and the more people you reach the more it costs. Politicians, even ones already in office, are always running for office and will do pretty much anything to stay there. Since they arn't paid enough to fund their own campaigns they have to get donations, and most of the really big donations come with certian strings attached. Oh the strings may not be very visible but it is bribery pure and simple.
    The only way we can really stop the problem is to change the nature of campaigning itself. I don't know the solution, and it won't be simple, or maybe what we need is a simple solution. I do have a few ideas though (what self respecting /. reader wouldn't have a few opinions on every subject ;-> )

    1. Eleminate all ads of every kind. All registered voters will be mailed a packet in which the candidates describe the views and have short bio. Add in several televised, mediated, public debates.

    2. The government pays an equal (and small amount) of money so each candidate can have exactly the same resources for their campaign. This is all the money that a candidate can use period. And to discourage people who would defraud the system, it comes in the form of vouchers for the air time used. ;->

    3. Eleminate representive democracy as we know it and replace it with a system in which everyone votes on major issues, on a daily or weekly basis via the internet, or a more secure subset of the internet. We would still want to elect a president and a small senate for handeling day to day affairs and so we could have strong leadership during a crisis. There would be alot of details to work out, esp veto power ect...

    Regardless of what is done, something very fundamental about the system has to change. If not the whole system of American democracy is going to cave in on itself.

  • I find it very amusing that what started out as a small company that had to contend with a large company known as IBM are now trying to corner the market and get rid of the very same pro-competion laws that helped to protect them during their beginings. Can anyone else here see what is wrong?

    How sad it is for such a powerful company to forget its roots. I fear that if Microsoft has its way, it would control everything. They need to be reminded of where they came from, and what they went through.

    Microsoft should remember the saying : "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutly."
  • Is there really a lack of information out there? As a Pittsburgher, for instance, I might get news from:

    * The _NY Times_, pretty good for in-depth (for a newspaper), and thoughtful even if I don't agree with them,
    * The _Pittsburgh Post-Gazette_, a fairly provincial, somewhat lefty/human-interest paper,
    * The _Pittsburgh Tribune-Review_, a rightist and extremely anti-Clinton rag,
    * The _Militant_, a leftist rag put out by local Socialists,
    * The _Wall Street Journal_, for the business side of things,
    * The _Economist_, which carries interesting comment online,

    and so forth. And that's even w/o mentioning the light-n-fluffy, often remarkably one-sided and superficial (both likely due to time constraints; few want to see the same story in depth for an hour...) drivel that passes for network news.

    Overall, that's a pretty broad spectrum.

    There's a lot of information out there. Much of it is remarkably biased and frequently incorrect, due to oft-repeated myths... and people tend to have a "confirmatory bias", meaning largely that they notice / accept mostly what they already agree with, which in effect reduces the utility of trying to inform them.

    Not to mention the fact that many are not only uninformed (including not having the background to comprehend what's going on, like understanding their own Constitution...), but completely uninterested. That's not a good situation. Short of forcing *far* more analytical thinking, logic, and so forth from a young age, I'm not sure what can be done about that.
  • I think that much of the problem lies in the mechanics of our elections. The main reason I know that anyone votes not because the candidate they're voting for is particularly great, it's to keep the other, really bad guy from getting elected.

    It's a depresssing thing, to keep voting for the lesser of two evils; it can really wear you down. Under the current system, I can hardly blame people who don't vote.

    I gave up voting that way some years ago, and now always vote for a candidate whose views I actually like. Such candidates are lucky to get 1% of the votes. I do it because I like to "participate", but in terms of the outcome, it obviously makes no difference whether I go to the polls or not.

    I have heard a proposal called instant runoff which would change all that. The way it works is this:

    You get to vote for a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice ... excactly how many doesn't affect the general scheme.
    Everybody's 1st choice is tabulated. If one candidate has a majority at this point, he's the winnner. If not, though ...
    The candidate with the fewest votes is taken off the roster, and the people who voted for him have their votes re-cast to be their 2nd choice.
    This process is repeated until their is a majority.

    With this scheme, there is suddenly no penalty for voting for the candidate you actully most favor, because you can cast the "lesser of 2 evils" as your second choice!

    I suspect if it were ever implimented, minority parties that get typically 1% of the votes or less would suddenly find themselves getting 10%.

    This is not the only such scheme, but it's a good one, and considering it makes it really clear how lame our current voting process is.

    How is something like the mechanics of the voting process changed within the current system of government?

  • "Rule of law" and "government regulation" aren't the same things. Look into it.

    MJP
  • A well written comment, but I fear you give capitalism too much credit.

    Capitalism is a flexible framework on which you can hang pretty much anything. Corporations, after all, publish magazines as diverse as Reason and The Nation. Corporate-run media is best known not for its stalwart defense of the capitalist system, but for its consistent middle-of-the-road nature. Both left and right are consistent in complaining about the media's performance on most issues, which makes me think this "capitalist running-dog lackey" argument is overdone.

    Now, it's true that corporate-run media tends to emphasize personalities and de-emphasize issues. I think there are a couple of reasons for this.

    First, people tend to be entertained by personality stories, and the more of them that exist, the better the paper sells. This is an imperative of capitalism that cannot be ignored -- but note that it's in no way ideological; a paper would call for the complete and utter overthrow of the capitalist system if market research showed that was what the readers wanted to hear.

    Second, the issues in our modern society are horrendously complex and difficult to explain. In the amount of time the media has before our attention wanders, I'd say they do a credible job. The problem is more with our contemporary impatience than anything specific with the media.

    Finally, not only is NPR a poor marketer, they are distinctly biased against capitalism. I would no more expect to get the whole story through NPR then I would by reading the Wall Street Journal. Both publications look at the news from a totally different perspective, and - like it or not - they tailor the news to what their audience wants to hear.

    If money and big corporate interests really controlled the system, there wouldn't be any talk at all about national health care. More than anything, labour unions support that particular cause, and they serve as a counterbalance for big corporations.

    D

    ----
  • Sounds more like an attempt to do something about corruption for the public while leaving plenty opportunity for receiving money. The system was designed in such a way that it would leave plenty of room for funding (otherwise it would not have been accepted). As I understand it, the contribution limit is on an individual basis. I.e. two people working for the same company may donate to the same politicians. About donations being public, I don't think it makes much difference. Neither the democratic or the republican party has any interest in donation money scandals since they are both guilty of being corrupted. So, it usually is a non issue for the media also.
    To prevent corruption, we have very strict rules in holland. Politicians are not allowed to accept gifts over 50$ or something like that. Generally it works reasonably well (we've had some small cases in local politics). At least I would be very much surprised if our prime minister would be involved in this sort of stuff.
  • An interesting page, but here are a few questions/points:

    So you have this enormous volume of people that have been elected (with at least 1 vote). Will these people "rule" from their homes, or will they be required to live in DC? How are they made accountable for their votes and actions if they are not physically present?

    Your proposal begins to sound an awful lot like a direct democracy (with people being able to exercise the option of proxy by "voting" for somebody else to vote for them). One of the main strengths of the representative nature of our government is that we effectively *pay* our representatives to educate themselves on legislation and to act with our interests in mind. If you require all of our representatives to hold "day jobs," how can you ensure that even our more highly-voted-for representatives can find the time to devote to legislating?

    A possible answer would be to allow people to change their votes at any time. When a representative does something against the wishes of those who have voted for him, votes would shift, decreasing the value of that representative (or removing him from office altogether).

    It sounds like this idea would be horribly complex no matter how you managed to do it.

    To be honest, it sounds like this style of governing might be more appropriate at a more local level (community, city, county or (at most) state), where the sheer bulk of people with votes will be manageable.

  • >But Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), whose campaign has received about
    >$51,000 from Microsoft or its employees since 1997, has been an
    >outspoken supporter of a cut in the antitrust budget.

    Maybe the real message is how disgustingly cheap it is to get politicians to shill for you.

    D

    ----
  • I can only think of this opinion as being totally bizarre.

    The advances in the computer industry in the last 30 years or so have been driven by people wanting to make computers easier to use and more accessible to the common man. None of that research was supported by government. Government didn't fund Xerox PARC, it didn't fund Apple, it didn't fund IBM.

    Computers are easy to use because capitalism gives us basically what we want. The society that would stick with green screen terminals and mainframes is the entirely socialist one.

    Without government intervention, the car you and I drive would be somewhat more likely to be German or Japanese, because our government propped up the GMs and Chryslers of the world.

    "Anything goes" capitalism is not a perfect system, but I'd say it's better than what we have today.

    D

    ----
  • 501 c4 groups can lobby and many efforts pair them up with a C3, so a side of the operation can lobby.

    matt
  • Hey...and maybe the government can use the money to give tax breaks to companies that keep thousands of IT people employed by producing bad software
  • "I doubt it swayed Gorton one way or another."

    Just one question, what's the point of giving somebody money if you won't get anything in return? I mean, MS is a commercial company, they don't give away money just for the sake of it.

    I think the only logical answer is that they expect this Gorton guy and a lot of other people they donated money to, to be nice to them when something comes up that is important to MS.

    Of course they can't expect much for 50000 but there's other ways to be nice to a politican. You can take him to an expensive restaurant, invite him for a business trip to the bahamas and god knows what.

    It's called lobbying.

    Similarly, a politician can do small favors for a company: support policies that are good for his friends, perhaps suggest or support favorable changes in laws that may help his friends out.

    This senator supporting a 9 million dollar cut on DOJ case funding is an example of such a small favor. It is easy to defend in public (goverment waisting money) and the guy probably would have gotten away with it if it stayed out of the media.

    This closed door way of doing politics is better known as corruption. I doubt the senator would have taken much interest in the whole case if he hadn't been paid.
  • Ofcourse America always touts itsself as the worlds guardian of democracy, but i have serious doubts. I have trouble calling a bi-partisan system a democracy. Here in the Netherlands there are at least 5 to 10 parties that matter. These parties have very different interests and cater to a specific part of the population. You have a couple of liberal parties, a couple of social-democratic parties, a couple of christian parties etc, and the result of an election is always to have a coalition formed, and compromises are made. The US has this bi-partisan system with 2 parties that have been in power for eternity. You don't see any new parties popping up having any influence, it's always between democrats and republicans, and even they don't really differ. They are both right-of-center conservative parties. I don't think thats a proper democracy, it's more an alternating olicharchy.

  • This isn't too shocking... (Score:3)

    by Shaken ( 95070 ) on Friday October 15, 1999 @07:12AM (#1611050)
    This is exactly the reason that our government should make lobbying illegal. The are many special interest groups and companies who are buying influence in our government, and it's not uncommon at all.

    What amazes me is that we as a country allow this to happen everyday, and for issues that are far more important than Anti-trust suits...

    Just call it "The buying of America", and Bill is the richest kid on the block...makes ya shudder don't it?

    Shaken

  • It's OK, business as usual (Score:3)

    by Chris Johnson ( 580 ) on Friday October 15, 1999 @07:20AM (#1611060) Homepage Journal
    The government has seen whores before, so this Washington senator shouldn't get too far. Besides, it's just another case of Microsoft believing that, and behaving like, they outrank the government, the law, and the American people.
    We've seen all this before. Hell, at one point it was the President acting like this! (Read up on Watergate!) It just doesn't fly, the Senate and the House of Representatives are there for a reason. It's like a jury- the idea is, if there is anybody who cannot tolerate the 'tyranny of the majority', they get a veto and then the country has to muddle through with a compromise to look after the best interests of _all_ the people, not just those with the loudest voices. In this case, I know there are a couple senators etc. who aren't whores for _this_ special interest, and I personally am quite happy to vote a straight don't-let-corporate-monopolies-wreck-the-tech-sect or ticket, and totally ignore anything else including party lines to do so, and let other people take care of the other valid concerns of politics. Indeed, I'm almost _forced_ to because of how much money is being spent corrupting the government and my representatives. I'm a vermonter, and I think Bernie Sanders is sound, but I have concerns that Jeffords is getting corrupted. At any rate, I'm definitely going to be a one-issue voter currently- everything else falls by the wayside compared to the destruction of the economy and the country by tech trusts. That's my privilege, and if it stops being such a threat I can think of other issues and pay attention to them a bit more.

  • Re:The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselv (Score:3)

    by evilpenguin ( 18720 ) on Friday October 15, 1999 @12:12PM (#1611066)
    Aw crap, you're right. I guess I'll give up after all. ;-)

    Look, I don't care how systemic the problems are. They are there and they are systemic because we, the people have almost totally abrogated our social responsibility . I see no value whatsoever in sitting on our duffs whining about it (I don't mean to abuse you personally, although it seems like it).

    You can make a difference. It is still a democracy. That the task is difficult is no reason not to undertake it. Hell, you heave a brick out a window and hit ten people who will readily take on an easy job. Take on the hard job!

    By thunder, I'm going to my precinct caucuses this year, come hell or high water. If we all did the same the system would change literally overnight. The popular will cannot be overwhelmed by all the money and power in the world because IT IS OUR POWER. They do, at the end of the day, need the votes.

    These "implacable forces" hold sway because disillusionen citizens have given up on our democracy.

    "Deep in our craven souls we know that Democracy is a dying giant, a relic breathing its last. I don't mean that America is finished as a world power, America is the wealthiest; the most powerful country in the world; and I don't mean the Communists are going to take over the world, the Communists are even deader than we are. No, what's finished is the notion that this great country is dedicated to the freedom and flourishing of every single individual in it. It's the individual that's finished. It's every single solitary one of you out there listening to me now who's finished. The entire world is becoming humanoid, creatures that look human but aren't. We are nation of 200 million deodorized, transistorized, whiter-than-white, steel-belted creatures, totally unnecessary as human beings and as replacable as piston rods."

    That quote (as best I can remember it, I'm writing from memory here) is from Paddy Chayefsky's magnificent screenplay for the movie "Network" (a movie I urge you all to see, by the way).

    I think that nightmare vision of America is here and real. But I don't have to accept it. Nihilistic despair has no room in my life. I choose to live deliberately. I'm going to my precinct caucus and I'm going to fight for a new software patent law and I'll probably fail. Where were you when I needed you?
  • Unfortunately for us the supreme court has pretty well fcked the human beings of the US. To fix the problem some Supreme Court decisions have to be over turned. Really the problem is fairly easily fixed if one just considers some common sense solutions.
    • Corporations are not human beings and therefore do not get the same liberties as human beings. Corporations should have no first amendment rights pure and simple. Does a corporation have second amendment rights? Can MS arm itself? scary huh?
    • Corporation can't vote so they should not be allowed to participate in any other way in the political process. If Bill Gates the human being wants to give great, but MS the corporation should not be allowed to participate in the political process.
    • Advertising is not speech. Advertising is already regulated for content. Political advertising is no different then advertising of any other kind and should be regulated just like a beer ad.

    If just these three things were done we would go a long way towards fixing the problem. No plan is perfect and of course the rich and the powerful of this country will not be detered easily after all they benefit from the status quo but we have to start someplace and do something.

  • a problem with our democracy (Score:5)

    by konstant ( 63560 ) on Friday October 15, 1999 @07:20AM (#1611069)
    This is a problem with our democracy, not just a problem with MS. Most residents of Washington state are aware that Senator Slade Gorton eats out of the hand of not just Microsoft, but also Boeing and Weyerhaueser, the next two largest local companies. Politicians who perhaps are already inclined towards helping business can easily be swayed with strategic "contributions". Microsoft clearly forsees a future in which it has emerged from the current anti-trust battle and continues to practice dubious business tactics. They wish to avoid a repeat of the current finagle. This offers us an interesting insight into their corporate mentality - evidently BillG doesn't believe he is going to lose the DoJ case. Not in the long run, at any rate. The dismaying part is that they are correct. You can own Congress. As I once heard someone say, "A congressman is the best long-term investment of all". Soft money has to go. Disclosure is poor at the moment, but even full disclosure would be ridiculously ineffective. The whole point of representative democracy is that I don't have to monitor every legislative detail that comes down the pike. What then are the chances that I will want to monitor every financial detail? Politicians will "fully disclose" their contributions buried somewhere in the back pages of the classifieds, and nobody will ever read them. The Supreme Court has several times ruled that money is speech. They are right, but they take it to illogical extremes. A contribution to the campaign of my favorite politician is indeed a means of indicating my support for him or her. But does a person with ten times as much disposable cash as myself really have ten times as much to say? Far from it. Let's put some teeth into limits on campaign contributions. Ban soft money and PACs. Microsoft can only do this because the corrupt infrastructure allows it.
    -konstant
  • Actually, I think the net war is going to take place in the US, not in europe. Most of europe is pretty safe compared to the US. I recently went to the US (conference visit) and to my own surpise and amusement found every single cliche I could think of confirmed: fat, stupid people all over the place and money fixes everything you need.

  • Re:Setting the standard for Arrogance (Score:5)

    by jilles ( 20976 ) on Friday October 15, 1999 @07:21AM (#1611072) Homepage
    They are a perfect example of how perverted the US is these this.

    As a dutch person I was shocked to read this:

    "But Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), whose campaign has received about $51,000 from Microsoft or its employees since 1997, has been an outspoken supporter of a cut in the antitrust budget."

    If this happens in Italy or South America you call it corruption. I don't think there's another word for it. MS is just using the system, they didn't create it. The whole DOJ case was lobbied for by other parties like SUN and IBM. Nobody is talking about that. Needless to say those parties benefited from the DOJ case by taking market share back from MS.

    It's disgusting what you can get away with if you have money in the US. As a comparison, if a dutch politician would accept "gifts" like this and it would get into the media, he could start looking for another job.

    What amazes me most is that in the current campaigns for the US presidency, the candidates are actually using the amount of bribing money they received to prove how suitable they are for the job. Judging from this George Bush seems to be the most corrupt/best candidate of all.
  • If you can prove 1% of what you are claiming our current government is history. I'm not saying we don't have any lobbying going on.

    It would very much surprise me if our prime minister had accepted a single dutch guilder from companies. Remember the trouble a former candidate called Brinkman had when the media found out he was involved with some obscure companies. Remember the media hype about the "beste Els .." letter (for non dutch people: Dear Els, .., Els Borst is a minister in the dutch government) from another dutch politician speaking on behalf of a company.

    Both cases prove that there is some lobbying going on. Both cases also proof that even the not so dirty cases can cause serious trouble for a politician if the media hears about it. Brinkman lost the elections and the minister nearly lost her job on this thing (she managed to talk her way out).


    "So don't say it doesn't happen here (except in local politics) .. it happens here just as much, only more covertly since there are no "legal" ways to bribe someone (like in the US with "campaign funding")"

    I hope I pointed out that the scale on which stuff happens is not so big as in the US. About the military stuff, I think there is a lot of diplomatic pressure when large orders are involved. Basically Holland decided to buy Apache helicopters against the enormous pressure from France and Germany to buy european stuff instead.

    "politicians are people with power .. and everyone has a price .. everyone can be bought ... "

    True (a bit cliche though), only it is illegal to be bought in Holland. If it is proven you generally have to face prison and even being suspected of corruption can be enough to loose your job. So in practice I don't think it happens that often.
  • This is what we all assumed would happen at the beginning. Once MS realized it was losing it pulled out the cash. This is where we see the REAL power behind this country, big business. The government needs money to function, big business, especially Microsoft, have LOTS of money. So MS just quietly (or not so quietly) informs the government that they need to pull funding from the DOJ. And I'm sure this is just a friendly request, based on logical reasoning and sound principles. I'm certain that MS isn't threatening to drop the US Gov, remove technical support (such as it is), move its operations over seas, or any other such militaristic business practices.

    Now we're going to see just how big a stick MS wields, and how hard they can beat a government superpower with it.

    Kintanon
  • Yanked from the webster site:

    Main Entry: republic
    Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
    Function: noun
    Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
    Date: 1604
    1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in
    a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified
    republican government of a political unit
    2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity
    3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia

    Main Entry: republic
    Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
    Function: noun
    Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
    Date: 1604
    1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in
    a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified
    republican government of a political unit
    2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity
    3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia

    Looks to me like American government can be accurately described by either word.
  • What would be more shocking is lobbying being illegal and then some Congressperson putting up a law for a vote that in order to make internet safe for kids, every web site author must have a license and follow strict guidelines for web page content otherwise lose the license.

    Without special interest groups, laws like these can sneak through. I don't have the time to review every law and submit my opinions or concerns to my Senators and Representative. And they can't possibly have the background for every law to make an appropriate vote. Thus special interests who know the various issues better than most can take appropriate action.

    What concerns me more is the price of special interests. That is moving representation farther away from the common folks.

    Think about it, when you hear arguments over some law, who brings it to your attention, your congresspeople, or special interest groups making a big stink out of something?

    ~afniv
    "Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
  • Whoops! Pasted the one definition twice (color me stupid). Here's what I meant to paste the second time:

    Main Entry: democracy
    Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
    Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
    Date: 1576
    1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving
    periodically held free elections
    2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
    3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
    4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
    5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
  • Microsoft makes no secret of the fact that it takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles.

    Yeah, that's right. If Free Market principles mean that you control your market, and have the capability of preventing competition.

    Countless scholars and professionals have weighed in with agreement, and even Scott McNealy -- outside of his vested interest in the downfall of Microsoft -- holds to strong free-market principles.

    Yes, holds to free-market principles that *anyone* is free to compete in the market. Not that one company is free to make it so that no one else can compete in the market.

    Funny how principles change when you realize that the government can be manipulated into doing your dirty work...

    Are you saying that Microsoft's principles changed? Because any other conclusion just isn't logical. It *is* the governments job to see that the market stays free. Otherwise, you just have a tyranny, just not a political one, but an economic tyrant.

    -Brent
    --
  • I'm not sure you are familiar with the caucus system. You don't vote for candidates at a caucus. You vote for delegates out of the people there. You vote on platform. Yes, delegates are generally "bound" to a candidate, but the caucus system is the point of entry to part activism. If you are highly motivated on an issue, it is through the caucus that you get your issue into the party's agenda.

    Caucus attendance is how the religious right got its surprising influence in the Republican party (surprising considering their political agenda is supported by a minority of Americans, a significant minority, but still a minority). They availed themselves of the tools. I'm urging "us" to do the same. By "us," I mean those here on slashdot, the majority of whom, I suspect, have similar views (not the same, but similar) on what I would call the "geek vote:"

    1) UCITA and defeating it.
    2) Crypto-law reform.
    3) Patent law reform as applied to software.
    4) Universal high-speed net access

    Item 4, I suspect, will have quite a range of views within slashdot and wouldn't be a "party vote," because I see slashdot as having a wide range of political views, from people like me who think the governement ought to just get in there and "Interstate" the network, to radical libertarians who would hold that all government regulation of the communications industry should be torn down to let them build the network, but I think it is fair to say that the goal is shared and we would quibble about the means.

    As for the now oft mentioned "slashdot" political site, I think people hesitate because it is likely to descend into flamewar central. I think such a thing could work if the editorial policy on articles kept them strictly confined to technology issues, and never strayed into more general policy questions.

    Rob can call me -- I'd be willing to run such a site ;-)
  • This can only be bad for Microsoft, although it is typical of thier tactics: attack, attack, attack

    I think this sends a signal to the government, and the signal is "we are bigger than you" and the government won't like at all.

    The government response will be to go after microsoft and make sure they get a kill. You can take money from schools, health, the poor and NASA but I've yet to see laywers accepting a pay cut.

    Doing this is corporate suicide - they should have spent the lobby funds showing how essential microsoft is to the american and world economy and painting a bleak future of a microsoftless world. This tactic would have been more efficient in getting a ground swell of beneficial public opinion for Microsoft.

    Perhaps Microsoft have given up - thier previous attempts at getting the public to back them haven't exactly set the world alight. This is probably because its hard to feel emotional about a company that doesn't care about you or your needs.

    The Open Source movement tends to get this kind of emotion because you can take the bit you care about and nurture it; you can get close to the people that actually matter in the open source movement; you can read Alan Cox's diary, see feedback from Linux Torvalds. This doesn't happen with closed source. Its a rare event to see someone who actually matters in Microsoft talking opening about the future.
  • Microsoft/Gorton claim the DOJ have used illegitimate tactics in their pursuit of their investigation against Microsoft. In an effort to reduce the use of these illegitimate tactics - making no mention of accusations of frivolous over-investigation - they want to cut the budget of this department?

    So they're saying "The DOJ does a necessary job badly - we must reduce the amount of money they receive, so they will do a better job." Is that correct?

  • Monopoly on life (Score:3)

    by Mr. Penguin ( 87934 ) <drjNO@SPAMtrivergent.net> on Friday October 15, 1999 @07:37AM (#1611105) Homepage

    I was talking to my fiancee yesterday and the conversation happened to turn to Bill Gates. The thought came into my mind that everyday, no matter what we do, Bill Gates somehow has something to do with it. If we go to the grocery store, the checkout line is probably running some of his software. If we watch TV, MS probably owns part of the station. He owns so much that there isn't any thing he can't make money off of.

    What brought this up was the fact that we were talking about the South Park movie and how they picked on him in one particular scene. My fiancee wondered if he took offense to such a scene. Then, it crossed my mind that MS, or some subsidary of theirs, probably owns shares in the studio that made the film. I'm sure they probably used his software in the making of the movie. So, even if they pick on him, he's still making money off of it and loving it.

    I wonder if this is healthy for America. Should we give a person the opportunity to control our daily lives? No way! Should we do everything that we can to stop him? Of course! The Linux movement really needs to take on this philosophy. But there is no way that the US could ever file an antitrust suit against Linux because it is free. That would be like them trying to sue God for being the sole provider of life, but making it free.

    I've got to go now, my MS Coffee Maker is buzzing. It's either done or locked up now.


    Brad Johnson
    Advisory Editor
  • It's time to do critical reasoning 101: restate the question with different players.


    Bob Smith, who has gotten several speeding tickets in the past and is currently fighting a speeding ticket which could result in him losing his license for 6 months, appeared today before the state legislature to plead that they cut the funding for the state Highway Patrol (which is responsible for enforcing speeding laws) since Mr. Smith believes that speed limits are a poor way to minimize injuries and deaths due to traffic accidents.


    Does Smith have a point? Perhaps; I certainly can't see any defense for the city of Denver issuing me a "photo radar" ticket for speeding while attempting to merge into interstate traffic. (Let's see, do I want to get a ticket or killed by the semi? I have 1 second to decide!)

    But at the same time Smith has such an obvious interest in cutting the budget of the agency enforcing laws against him that it should take extraordinary events for him to be taken seriously. The Ramseys asking Boulder County to stop funding the investigation if it continues to focus on them exclusively *might* have a case, but MS in the middle of an ongoing trial does not, IMHO.

    *sigh* At least I can ask my congressman about the change of crypto policy that allows MS to export Kerberos, but not me to export my Kerberized Debian packages, at the same time I write him about this nonsense. Maybe I'll get lucky and he'll see a connection.

    Coyote-san on soon

  • Re:Go Microsoft. (Score:4)

    by bmetzler ( 12546 ) <bmetzler@noSpAm.live.com> on Friday October 15, 1999 @07:44AM (#1611115) Homepage Journal
    I must say, I see nothing improper about this. It looks to me like a simple self-defense move. They're doing everything they can to avoid getting screwed over. If the DoJ is going to harass them, why shouldn't they fight back?

    In other news...

    REDMOND, Wash. - Oct. 15, 1999 -- In direct response to continuing actions by the Department of Justice, the Microsoft Corp. announced today that it will be acquiring the federal government of the United States of America for an undisclosed sum.

    "It's actually a logical extension of our planned growth," said Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, "Microsoft is committed to doing whatever it takes to keep ahead in the cut-throat market that we are in today." Microsoft representatives held a briefing in the oval office of the White House with U.S. President Bill Clinton, and assured members of the press that changes will be "minimal." The United States will be managed as a wholly owned division of Microsoft. An initial public offering is planned for July of next year, and the federal government is expected to be profitable by "Q4 1999 at latest", according to Microsoft president Steve Ballmer.

    In a related announcement, Bill Clinton stated that he had "willingly and enthusiastically" accepted a position as a vice president with Microsoft, and will continue to manage the United States government, reporting directly to Bill Gates. When asked how it felt to give up the mantle of executive authority to Gates, Clinton smiled and referred to it as "a relief". He went on to say that Gates has a "proven track record", and that U.S. citizens should offer Gates their "full support and confidence". Clinton will reportedly be earning several times the $200,000 annually he has earned as U.S. president, in his new role at Microsoft.

    Gates dismissed a suggestion that the U.S. Capitol be moved to Redmond as "silly", though did say that he would make executive decisions for the U.S. government from his existing office at Microsoft headquarters. Gates went on to say that the House and Senate would "of course" be abolished.

    "Microsoft isn't a democracy", he observed, "and look how well we're doing".

    When asked if the rumored attendant acquisition of Canada was proceeding, Gates said, "We don't deny that discussions are taking place".

    Microsoft representatives closed the conference by stating that United States citizens will be able to expect lower taxes, increases in government services and discounts on all Microsoft products.

    About Microsoft

    Founded in 1975, Microsoft (NASDAQ "MSFT") is the worldwide leader in software for personal computers, and democratic government. The company offers a wide range of products and services for public, business and personal use, each designed with the mission of making it easier and more enjoyable for people to take advantage of the full power of personal computing and free society every day.

    About the United States

    Founded in 1789, the United States of America is the most successful nation in the history of the world, and has been a beacon of democracy and opportunity for over 200 years. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the United States is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation.


    --
  • I have to agree here. It would be much better for everyone if we had just let Standard Oil set gasoline prices. Also, that breakup of AT&T?? What a nightmare, long distance phone prices have not been stable since!

    Microsoft makes no secret of the fact that it takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles. Countless scholars and professionals have weighed in with agreement...

    Not even Robert Bork, a long time enemy of Anti-Trust legislation "takes antitrust legislation to be a breach of free-market principles." Most of what you see from "Countless scholars and professionals" is just MS propaganda. Some of those "Countless scholars" said they never would have "weighed in" if they had known that Microsoft was footing the bill for the "Independent" council that ran the NYT ad.

    Funny how principles change when you realize that the government can be manipulated into doing your dirty work...

    Microsoft has noticed that too. That's why they are using their considerable influence to manipulate the government into leaving them alone.

    Funny how they take a stand on principle only after it threatens them...

  • Sorry: like I said, other people can cover their own concerns. There are too many valid concerns for one person to deal with, and I do not agree that Microsoft should be allowed to use its money and lobbying power and pet senator to shut off entire branches of government it does not like.
    Do you see Cowpland and Corel trying to get the government to turn off insider trading regulations?
  • One of the great achievements of the french revolution was separation of state, church and law. American politicians put the word god in just about any sentence they speak (to please their ignorant voters) and have great influence on the legal system since they control its funding (judging from the story).

    In addition to that they are as corrupted as the french royal clan was before the revolution. It's time for a new revolution, it can't get more perverted than this: the defending party in a legal battle bribing politicians in order to obstruct justice. The sad part is that it is all legal.
  • I guess the Mafia (the other M organization) will be asking the goverment to cut the FBI budget as well.

    While stongly assuring us that this won't affect the FBI's investigations of Mafia doings

    -Brent
    --

  • The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves (Score:5)

    by evilpenguin ( 18720 ) on Friday October 15, 1999 @07:49AM (#1611122)
    The illness in American Democracy is not Microsoft. It is not even big money. It is not even the absurd (IMHO) Supreme Court decision that money is speech. The illness is me. The illness is you. The illness is the fact that you didn't go to your precinct caucusses, did you? (Neither did I, I'm not getting holier-than-thou here).

    The sickness is the way regard the government as "them" and the people as "us." I've got news for you folks. The government is "us." Why have "evil special interests" taken over the government and made lapdogs of legislators? Because we were not there.

    This government is ours. It is structured to do what we want it to do. But we are not there saying what we want!

    Instead, we participate in focus groups where the same researches who figure out why we buy one brand of toothpaste over another ask us a series of provocative questions and measure our emotional responses. They are not looking for what we think, they are after what we feel because they know a dirty little secret. People are not motivated by intellect, they are motivated by emotion.

    This system allows our political discourse to descend from open discussion of matters of vital interest to us (like anti-trust and patent law, like tax policy and welfare reform) to grainy black-and-white advertisements showing a prison with a reveloving door and that scary black man! (I'm referring to the George Bush "Willie Horton" ad here, but both parties do this -- I'm not being partisan, I just think the Willie Horton ad was the most despicable example of this.)

    Now, your intellect knows full well that if you vote for Dukakis, you wife will not autmatically be raped and murdered by a black man. But it, along with the rest of the scientific marketing research, designed to find your emotional hot buttons, creates an "emotional aura" around the candidate that is pervasive and insiduous, hard to identify and reason with, difficult to resist.

    So what do we do? We aren't totally blind. We aren't robots. These ads don't MAKE us vote in a particular way in and of themselves, but they do make us digusted and fed up. We feel in our guts that this ISN'T democracy, so we turn off. The political diet is empty calories and we go looking elsewhere for nourishment.

    I think this empty, mindless, constant appeal to emotion is why we stay away from the polls in droves.

    Well-funded interests are all too happy to step in and take what they can from the carcass of our freedoms. What the hell? We don't want it.

    We CAN stop this. While our government may seem to be totally out of control, and that we are powerless, our government still retains the FORM of democracy. Call your local library. Find out where your party caucus is held. Go. Talk. Question. Discuss. There will be organizers there for candidates. They will have a platform. They will have votes and positions. They will try to pressure you to keep your mouth shut. They will try to control the election of delegates. Don't let them. Speak up. Go. See how it works. It will make you mad, but don't knuckle under. Bring some friends. Insist on talking about what bothers you.

    I've seen it here. Slashdotters have some definite opinions on real matters of law and commerce. Don't settle for the way things are. All the tools needed to take back our government are there. Make the next Congress an "open source" Congress (forgive me for such a weak and strained linkage, but I think the same kind of spirit that imbues open source/free software can be tapped to bring reality back to politics).

    Think of it like exercise, or, yes, open source programming. I get paid to write software at work. I set aside a little time every week to work on my free software project. This year, I've decided to set aside a little time to work on my "software patent" idea. I'm going to my caucus and I'm going to get a vote on a platform plank. A platform that patents on software be limited to no more than 24 months. I know that many would like no patents on software, but other forces will want patents to stay just as they are. I'm going for a compromise.

    Whatever it is that upsets you, go. Make your voice heard. Write your congretional delegation.

    You must not wait for others to give you your freedom. You must take it for yourself. It is yours, but if you leave it lying on the ground, don't be surprised when someone (maybe Microsoft) picks it up and says, "hey, I could use this!"

    It is you country. Take it.
  • Unfortunately the article was vague and did not mention any of the nonprofits by name. If they did, you could check with the IRS to find out their tax status since this is a matter of public record.

    Note that in the US there are several types of nonprofits. The ones that I am most familiar with are 501(c)(3) tax-exempt or charitable nonprofits. The groups mentioned in the article may be incorporated under a different standard and could have different regulations apply to them.

    There is anothe, even worse, flaw in what MS has done. Nonprofits are forbidden from accepting any "quid pro quo" donations. That is, a nonprofit risks losing its nonprofit status if it accepts a donation with the understanding that it will perform a specific service for the donor. So if these nonprofits were supported by MS donations, it is doubly bad for them to be coerced into illegal political lobbying.

    Again, I can't say it loud enough, IANAL. Any GJ++++(-$) types out there with more info, please speak up!
  • The Supreme Court has several times ruled that money is speech. They are right...
    No, they're not.

    If I slip the cop who pulls me over for speeding a twenty dollar bill when I hand him my licence, hoping to get out of a hundred dollar ticket, that's bribery. Why is it any different if I slip the mayor (or a mayoral candidate) twenty thousand dollars in campain contributions in hopes that he'll veto a law that's going to fine my factory a hundred thousand dollars for pollution violations?

    How's this for an idea - if I want to make a large contribution to a candiate, I have to go through an anonymizing proxy. I can say "I endorse Candidate X, and contributed to his (or her) campain," but telling the candidate how much I gave is recognized as bribery and I go to jail. Propositions of the form "(Support/veto) bill foobar and I'll make a large but unspecified contribution to your campain" are also recognized as bribery. That allows me to support the candidate of my choice, but elminates my ability to dangle cash in front of his (or her) nose to lead him (or her) in about.

    There's also the problem of coporate control of the media determining who gets to get their message out, but that's another issue - and one that, with a bit of luck, the decentralized nature of the net will take care of.

    One man, one vote. Not one dollar, one vote.

  • Re:The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselv (Score:3)

    by AngryMob ( 89923 ) on Friday October 15, 1999 @08:45AM (#1611144)
    Noble sentiment. I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Unfortunately I think you're being a bit naive about the way democracy works in this country. The reason it fails is because the main avenues of control are corrupted. Observe:

    i. Informationbr> Any good democracy requires a well-informed public. If the public is going to decide what's right and what's wrong, they need to know all the facts from an unbiased source. This is impossible in America, because media is a big business. The media outlets that will succeed best are those that are most corporate in nature. Everyone won't listen to NPR, because NPR is a poor marketer.
    Therefore everyone will get the tainted information peddled by the bastard child of GE, NBC, and the bastard child of tabloid merchant Rupert Murdoch, Fox, and the bastard child of Disney, ABC, and the bastard child of Warner Brothers, Time/Newsweek/CNN. Reporting is not objective or interested in disseminating relevant information. Information flow is fundamentally flawed.
    The internet has the power to change such things. Maybe /. is one such example - reporting of things the public (or one segment of it) wants to hear about, not what a corporation feels will market well. I.e., no Diana or Junior stories here.

    ii. Expertise
    The public no longer has anywhere near the expertise necessary to know what's in their best interest. Even basic economic principles like flat-taxes have to be digested by commentators and explained to the masses to tell them what the effects are. Forget about complex issues like research biology funding/free speech and censorship/separation of church and state. The public is wholly unable to, for the most part, comprehend all the factors involved.
    Before you go jumping in about how you disagree, recognize that you are a select minority and you're not representative of how most people think.

    iii. Capitalism
    Not to fault free markets in general, but when you have a society built on money, as ours is, it's inevitable that those with more money will control everything. I don't find it surprising that someone like GE can have such an influence on politics, or that health care reform is so difficult to move along, because damnit, we created the beast that's controlling us. We allow a free market to develop giant corporations with tons of resources and very strong vested interest. Isn't it inevitable that they attempt to exercise their considerable power to protect those vested interests? Certainly. Especially since capitalism is probably good at getting unscrupulous people on top. No one got rich feeding orphans.
    The solution, of course, is put in controls on how much corporations can influence government, via controlling contributions, etc. Of course, since they're the puppetmasters right now, this is somewhat more difficult than saying "Let's change it."

    iv. Individualism
    Fundamentally American culture is selfish and egocentric. Few individuals are motivated by notions of higher societal good, as is quite common in other nations (like our close neighbor Canada). It's inevitable that in such a situation corruption develops. Until such a fundamental aspect of Americana changes, we'll always be fucked.

    Solutions are not simple. They require big-time revolution and reform. Thomas Jefferson was of the opinion that a government needs to be knocked down every twenty to fifty years to prevent stagnation. I think we're overdue for one of these.

    SA
  • So they're saying "The DOJ does a necessary job badly - we must reduce the amount of money they receive, so they will do a better job." Is that correct?

    I don't believe they see the DOJ's job as necessary. Try this on "The DOJ does a unnecessary job badly - we must reduce the ammount of money they receive, so they do less unnecessary things badly."

    While that is a sound argument, there are more appropriate less contemptious ways of addressing their issues. However, the system maintains the system, so its understandable that they wish to work around the system, rather than within it.
  • What would be more shocking is lobbying being illegal and then some Congressperson putting up a law for a vote that in order to make internet safe for kids, every web site author must have a license and follow strict guidelines for web page content otherwise lose the license.

    Believe it or not, but we have these nifty things called checks and balances. See, if your congressman does something like this, you make a choice not to vote for him/her again. Most of the congress members know this ahead of time, and unless they are from an ultra conservative district they won't vote for such things. Seeing as there atleast 50% of members who are not from ultraconservatives areas, and the ones that are often tend to dislike government regulations in the first place such laws tend to not pass. Secondly where the checks come in place, we also have this nifty guy called the President, who is WAY to concerned about his image, and would veto something like this as long as the people know about it. (more reason for the common people to atleast know what laws are being passed, though it would take way to much time to know every law that is voted on, only a few laws accually reach the president). Next in line we have the Justice branch of government, to rule the constitutionality of such laws. (Though I'm sure the DOJ would love to be able to rule a cut in their pay unconstitutional.. it doesn't exactly work that way :)
  • Absolutely typical MS bashing. ... Get a life ...

    After seeing Microsoft's actions for the last year, and the inability to "punish" Microsoft for it's wrong doings, I am about fed up. What is a good country that I can move to that has a *real* free market?

    -Brent
    --

  • Re:What's so amazing about it? (Score:5)

    by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tms&infamous,net> on Friday October 15, 1999 @08:09AM (#1611156) Homepage
    To allow the USA to have a truely 'free market' economy, the antitrust laws would have to be repealed.
    Fine. Just so long as you eliminate all those other artificial market restritions, too - you know, state creations like intellectual propery, corporations as legal individuals with full rights but lessened responsibility, absentee ownership, the banking system, the common currency, and all the other acts of government that make capitalism possible.

    In the meanwhile, though, if the state is going to allow the creation of corporations like Microsoft, and support them by artificial intellectual property rights, I see no problem with antitrust laws that keep the state's creation from getting too far out of line.

  • Miller wrote Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), who chairs the House Appropriations Commerce, Justice, State and judiciary subcommittee. "It would be a devastating blow to the high-tech industry and to our overall economy if the federal government succeeds in its efforts to regulate this industry through litigation."

    (Note how general this is -- he doesn't specifically state he wants DoJ off Microsoft's back; the timing simply happens to be coincidental, I guess. Yeah, right. This Rep Dan Miller smells pretty corrupt.)

    Er, anyway... if this guy doesn't want regulation, that's fine. But trying to cut the funding (when DoJ just happens to be prosecuting MS) is the wrong way to do it. If he really believes what he is saying, he should introduce legislation to repeal antitrust laws.

    Having laws without enforcement is a very bad thing, because they'll just get selectively enforced and used as a tool to suppress whoever doesn't play ball. If you don't want DoJ going after companies that break the law, then change the law, not DoJ. It isn't their fault.

    And about this "devastating blow to the high-tech industry" bullshit... This whole case was caused by the blow that Microsoft delivered to the industry. Whenever anyone tells you that this is somehow "bad for the economy" remember that they really just mean "bad for MS stockholders".


    ---

  • Isn't it obvious? (Score:3)

    by Codifex Maximus ( 639 ) on Friday October 15, 1999 @08:58AM (#1611165) Homepage
    >Microsoft Corp. lobbyists and allies are aggressively pressing Congress to
    >reduce next year's proposed funding for the Justice Department's antitrust
    >division, the giant software company's accuser in a storied court battle.

    >Microsoft representatives have urged House and Senate members to cut
    >President Clinton's proposed funding for the division by about $9 million
    >this year.

    Doesn't Microsoft about that in a day or something? $9 Million is about
    10% of DOJ Budget!

    >And nonprofit organizations that receive financial support from
    >the company have also urged key congressional appropriators to limit
    >spending for the division when they begin their final negotiations on the
    >Justice Department budget, possibly as early as Monday.

    >The nonprofit groups made their request in a letter last month after an
    >all-expenses-paid trip to Microsoft headquarters in Redmond, Wash.,
    >where they were entertained and briefed on an array of issues facing the
    >company.

    YEAH! What's up with the DOJ attacking these non-profit's source of revenue?

    >But company officials said they want to send a strong message to the
    >antitrust division.

    Hello... DOJ? Bill is not happy with you.

    >But Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.), whose campaign has received about
    >$51,000 from Microsoft or its employees since 1997, has been an
    >outspoken supporter of a cut in the antitrust budget.

    Surprise... surprise!

    >Such an action would "express total dissatisfaction with the way Justice is
    >handling the case against Microsoft," said a spokeswoman for Gorton.
    >She added that Gorton, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations
    >Committee, is "pretty confident he will be able to get [the Senate] number
    >lowered closer to the House number."

    How dare the DOJ mishandle the case with expert testimony, revealing interviews,
    competant courtroom demonstrations, professionalism, and supported facts?

    Microsoft with it's BILLIONS is NOT SUPPOSED TO LOSE! What a terrible
    precedent it would be if that were true.

    Bill will make you an offer you can't refuse. Not.
  • Well, you've got to admit, they've got guts.

    It appears, though, that they've misplaced their brains. This move is simply too obvious. While the diehard Microslaves will be taken in by this trick, I think M$ is probably going to alienate a lot more people (particularly the politicians) with this move. Unless, of course, they can find enough corrupt politicians (heck, Billy himself could throw several million bucks at every single politician in Congress, so I suppose it's possible).
  • How's this for an idea - if I want to make a large contribution to a candiate, I have to go through an anonymizing proxy.

    That's an interesting idea, but it has drawbacks. Namely that we have no assurance the politician and the donor have not conferred secretly. Such a combination surely would be worse than the corrupt but discoverable method we employ today.

    -konstant
  • I believe it is a widely known fact that companies such as Sun, Netscape/AOL, and Novell all have much larger offices and budgets devoted to lobbying. In forums other than Slashdot, there was a good deal of discussion abut how much influence those companies had on the DOJ's decision to prosecute Microsoft.

  • lobbying != enacting change (Score:3)

    by riboflavin ( 18784 ) on Friday October 15, 1999 @08:39AM (#1611184)
    There's a difference between lobbying for something and actually getting something done. All this means is that Microsoft is trying to convince congress to spend less money on the DOJ. It's their opinion, they certainly have the right to express it. If they've convinced certain organizations to lobby with them, then good for them. Those organizations have a right to their own opinion as well, and they have a right to tell congress about them.

    Even you have the right to lobby your congressman about this issue, and if you really care about it, you should do it. People like to sit back and bitch about how the US government is dominated by special interests groups, but nobody makes sure that their opinions are heard as well. If the special interests groups are the only ones that want to take part in American politics, then they should be the ones shaping our policy. But guess what? special interests groups such as MS make up a small minority of the population. If everybody actually took part in politics, they wouldn't have much of an effect.

    People who say that special interests play too big a role in our government but don't tell their congressman their views make about as much sense to me as people who don't vote because they don't like the government.
  • Poor MS: "It's hell being the second biggest bully on the block. Someone really ought to do something about that bigger one, so I can be the biggest. Sniff."

    I wish I owned a few billion dollars worth of legislators. Then we'd start seeing some real changes around here.

    --
    It's October 6th. Where's W2K? Over the horizon again, eh?
  • Very well written, and a great analysis.

    My only comment is that it may not be as innocent as you depict. Who is in government? A few idealists, and many attracted to money and power. Those attracted to money and power will naturally use their money and power to accumulate more money and power. Result: corruption plus laws and behavior to keep power in the hands of politicians. Positive feedback leads to accumulation of power limited only by the need to be re-elected and to avoid provoking revolution. The means of discouragement are therefore subtle, and not planned so much as left in place as they occur naturally and happen to help the accumulation of power.

    It is no accident that people are turned off by politics. The less people pay attention the more the politicians can do as they please.

    Political education is poor. Many schools are poor in general, tend to teach history by convenient ommission of ugly details, and have student governments that are complete figureheads for the adminstration as a great practical example of democracy.

    There is a two party system that relatively no one cares to pick between. Parties run on emotional ideologies, not critical analyses of issues. Demogogue A, or Demogogue B, let me see... well, B sounds more friendly and dresses better...

    The low level details of politics are obscured. When was the last time you saw a public service announcement that a local caucus was taking place soon, be sure to attend? How many people could describe the entire process by which national candidates are selected and elected?

    Usually both parents have to work to maintain an approved lifestyle. And work doesn't mean 8 hours a day for many, more like 10 or 12. We get a generous 2-3 week vacation while most of the first world takes 6. Where is the time to get involved in politics?

    And presuming you do work hard and get a plank in place, what makes you think it will be implemented? The Christian conservatives have had much more luck getting conservative planks in place than outlawing abortion, using just the grassroots technique you suggest.

    Yeah, it's our fault for not being disgusted enough to force ourselves to jump thru their hoops to take power back. But we've had a *lot* of help with that inertia, and if people ever seriously tried, it wouldn't be without very intense opposition. Worth doing, but you need a few major issues to mobilize around, and the powers that be can defeat the movement by giving in on those any time, so pick well -- they have to be truly hated by the powerful and very popular at the same time.
  • That's it with you Microsoft zealots: you are so busy defending your beloved Company that you've lost your sense of humor.

    Ah, finally someone with some intuition.

    Although the prevalent accusation is that Linux users are incessant in proclaiming the goodness of their OS, Microsoft Bigots are often more so.

    -Brent
    --
  • Bzzzzzzt, you lose. Amendments change the Constitution, and are a part of the document itself.

    Now where's that amendment restricting campaign financing, eh?
  • Where to begin?

    > If the public is going to decide what's right
    > and what's wrong, they need to know all the
    > facts from an unbiased source. This is
    > impossible in America, because media is a big
    > business.

    The first part is partially incorrect. The same effect can be had by getting information from a number of sources with different biases. Given the difficulty of objectivity in anything but physical or logical disciplines, this is the only option.

    The second part is simply incorrect. There is nothing about media as big business that makes it impossible to be informed. Just the wild exaggeration denoted in the use of the word 'impossible' is telling. While media may often be less than objective, different media sources serve different agendas. Mother Jones and Time-Warner are not going to give the same take on a news story. However, both are available to anyone who searches them out.

    Which brings us to the real problem: public apathy. It isn't that it is impossible to be informed, it is that most people don't bother. They either don't have an interest in politics or prefer to take the easy route and ride on their personal prejudices rather than examine a view from all sides.

    Intellectual laziness and a lack of critical thinking skills are what makes a person uninformed, not the 'Big Bad Media'.

    > The public no longer has anywhere near the
    > expertise necessary to know what's in their
    > best interest. Even basic economic principles
    > like flat-taxes have to be digested by
    > commentators and explained to the masses to tell > them what the effects are.

    Has it ever been otherwise? Even the most celebrated multidisciplinarians in history have not been able to master every field. Nor should they need to. It is enough that the public know what's its interests are. They don't need to know themselves how to implement them. It is no different than owning a microwave. Odds are, most folks who do don't know how they work. They can still, however, make informed decisions on whether or not to buy them. When more detailed information is needed, they can go to specialists. This is how human society has functioned since cities rose. It isn't anything new.

    > Not to fault free markets in general, but when
    > you have a society built on money, as ours
    > is, it's inevitable that those with more money
    > will control everything.

    Money basically is a representation of human life. As an indicator of value, it is an abstract of how much of our energy, our labor, something is worth to us. Thus, it represents the basis of all human existence.

    The only difference between free markets and other economic systems is that the flow of money is most efficiently distributed to represent the value of goods to individuals. In a free market system, a person gets rich because people highly value the goods or service he provides.

    The contrast is to systems of coercion where the flow of capital is determined by the will of a smaller portion of the population (governments, rulers, guilds, etc). Both sorts of systems are based on money, as any economic system is.

    > We allow a free market to develop giant
    > corporations with tons of resources and very
    > strong vested interest. Isn't it inevitable that > they attempt to exercise their considerable
    > power to protect those vested interests?
    > Certainly.

    Often, when business tries to dabble in politics, it is because politics is presenting some sort of threat. Political dabbling in markets is anathema to capitalism, thus your logic is very questionable.

    Further, while it may be inevitable that they try to further themselves through dabbling in politics (which happens as well), it is not inevitable that they have avenues to do so. In fact, again, if there are means to have business influence government, this is against capitalist notions of economic-political interaction, and again your attempts to blame it on capitalism fall short.

    It always baffles me to see people try to blame an economic system whose defining characteristic is seperation of economics and politics for interaction between economics and politics.

    > Fundamentally American culture is selfish and
    > egocentric. Few individuals are motivated
    > by notions of higher societal good, as is quite > common in other nations (like our close
    > neighbor Canada). It's inevitable that in such a > situation corruption develops. Until such a
    > fundamental aspect of Americana changes, we'll
    > always be fucked.

    There's a lot wrong with this statement. First off, the first statement is a gross generalization verging on bigotry, as well as being incredibly inaccurate. Individualism is a basis of American culture and encourages enlightened self-interest, not juvenile egotism. Some of the most rugged individualists in American history have also been some of the most compassionate humanitarians and it is an insult to their memory to make such inaccurate statements.

    Second, it again baffles me that America is considered selfish and unconcerned with higher societal good and at the same time be criticized for its 'policing of the world', where American soldiers go to risk their lives around the world in efforts to suppress tyranny and injustice. Also, I might add, America contributes more financial aid to other nations than any other country in the world (including Canada).

    I fear, unfortunately, that our general lack of willingness to sacrifice our rights and freedom for the illusion of security that government sponsered humanitarian programs offer is seen as being 'heartless'. All I can offer to this is that it was American aid that kept Russian Communists from starving to death after the revolution. So much for 'heartless capitalism'.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel

Close