Even one of M$’ supporters in the trades finds the DoJ/M$ agreement “embarrassing.”
As someone generally considered to have been in Microsoft’s corner throughout the three years of this court battle, I find the proposed settlement more than a little embarrassing. If I didn’t like Judge Jackson’s break-up ruling, I like the proposed settlement only a little more. You nuke Netscape and abuse monopoly power and then lie about it in federal court–and this is what happens to you?
The author, ZDNet executive editor David Coursey, goes through his own laundry list of gaps and give-aways in the settlement agreement.
A final observation: A year ago, in endorsing Al Gore’s presidential candidacy, I warned my Republican friends that a vote for Bush was a vote for Microsoft. And while Attorney General John Ashcroft denies White House complicity, can there be any doubt the settlement would be vastly different if Democrats were in charge?
The irony here was that the Bush White House was more than happy to rattle sabers at the pharmaceutical industry in order to get a plentiful supply of cheap Cipro. Can you imagine Ashcroft threatening to ignore the patent/copyright protection that M$ has on its products? Me, neither. Not unless there were a lot more political heat about it.
Oh, that Ashcroft statement? Here it is, on 2 November:
The agreement “will put an end to Microsoft’s unlawful conduct and bring effective relief to the marketplace and ensure that consumers will have more choices in meeting their needs of computing and working with their computers,” he told a news conference.
Asked if the agreement constituted “selling out” by the government, Ashcroft replied, “That’s totally false.” He called it “a strong, historic settlement.”
[…] “A competitive software industry is vital to our economy, and effective antitrust enforcement is crucial to preserving competition in the constantly changing hi-tech arena,” Ashcroft said.
Given Ashcroft’s recent Orwellian assault on Constitutional due process, it’s not surprising that he might have Orwellian definitions for words like “competitive,” “effective,” and “enforcement.”