Slashdot Mirror
LinuxPlanet Interviews Robert Bork
Greg writes: "Robert Bork, former Supreme Court appointee from the Reagan era and a recent entrant in the MS antitrust case, did an
interview
over at LinuxPlanet. The topic? The Evil Empire's court settlement." Bork isn't actually new to the Microsoft case or to the subject of monopolies -- his legal experience makes this an interesting read, even for those who don't consider Microsoft an "evil empire."
Bork is widely acknowledged in legal circles as one of our country's greatest legal minds.
He is widely respected for his integrity.
He is a well known legal conservative and strong believer in strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution.
Anyone who thinks that the Microsoft case is a left-wing attack on big business should pay careful attention to Bork's words. Whatever else Bork may be, he ain't no left-wing anti-business type.
Let me note that for the record, Reagan attempted to put him on the Supreme Court, but he was rejected. This was because of ideological reasons, hence the term "borked" was invoked when Bush appointed Ashcroft Attorney General. Anyways, just wanted to note that while he was nominated, he was not actually placed on the Supreme Court, as "Robert Bork, former Supreme Court appointee" suggests.
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
As some of you know, the proposed ruling in the Microsoft case has some major problems. According to the article, former Supreme Court appointee Judge Robert H. Bork--thinks "it gives it a clearroad to further monopolies. They can do to all kinds of products nowwhat they did to the browser."
Now the question is, will anything be done about it?
Bork isn't actually new to the Microsoft case or to the subject of monopolies -- his legal experience makes this an interesting read, even for those who don't consider Microsoft an "evil empire."
That's why I have trouble caring too much about this stuff. It's evil empire vs. evil empire vs. evil empire.
From the article:
"Eighth-hand, I was told that Rupert Murdoch was frightened about the control Microsoft might have in getting to various sites, and if Rupert Murdoch is scared, I'm scared."
Personally I'd rather have Bill Gates controlling my content than Rupert Murdoch. But I'd rather not have anyone doing so.
Maybe I can find a nice tropical island somewhere and live the debauched life of an expatriate, spending my days swilling margaritas on a beach...
"So it is not so remarkable that a noted conservative lawyer would see perfect reason for action to be brought against Microsoft for the transgressions we have all witnessed and experienced over the years; what is remarkable is that people would find such a position at all unusual."
I'm not sure I agree, at all. Alright, so from an intellectual standpoint, it's ridiculous that the public would find the Judge's position unreasonable, but from the Public's Perspective, it makes perfect sense.
Mircosoft Provides Software to the Large Majority of the Public that they Encounter Every Single Day for, in their mind, a reasonable price. Therefore, people who use this software have nothing against Microsoft, don't realize what it's doing to the industry as a whole, and keep going with their MSWord/Internet Explorer/WindowsXP Spyware.
The web has started to become "optimized" for Internet Explorer, but the public doesn't really care, because they aren't seeing the huge technological impairment that Microsoft is - they're only seeing the benefits.
If and when Microsoft really does make a PR mistake, or Linux finally jumps into the mainstream, I expect the "flyswatter of freedom" (from the article) to crack down on their heads, but for now, they're going to stay afloat because of public opinion and use.
Robert Bork is the #1 authority on modern antitrust law, with Richard Posner (who served as a mediator in this case) a close #2.
Modern antitrust law is essentially what Bork & Posner suggested would better protect consumers in a series of law beginning inthe late 60's. They pointed out that the current state of the law made no sense, conflicting wsith itself and the economics it dealt with (Brown Shoe, Bork's favorite: Brown & Kinney, with 5% and 1% of the manufacturing & sales markets for shoes, wanted to merge. DoJ blocked this (successfully with the USSC) on the grounds that it would allow them to sell a product of comparable quality at a lower price than their competitors . . . aren't you grateful for such protection?)
Anyway, Bork is seen as a rabid conservative, which is inaccurate (though he's now a conservative on many issues), but he wasactually a screaming leftist (borderline socialist) who learned some economics and changed his positions based on them--to achieve the original goals.
Bork argued that the sole legitimate test of the competition was whether it benefitted or hurt the consumer: if consumers will see lower prices from the merger of ten firms down to 3, than it is a pro-competitive merger. He also arugued that the law should protect competition, not the other competitors.
His antitrust rules are *not* republican--the Clinton administration pretty much took the same path.
hawk, esq.
From the article:
Indeed, it is so troubling that other big companies in the information business are at peril, he said.
"Eighth-hand, I was told that Rupert Murdoch was frightened about the control Microsoft might have in getting to various sites, and if Rupert Murdoch is scared, I'm scared."
I love how everyone and their companies deem Microsoft the bad guy but would switch places with them in a heartbeat.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
Every time I hear the name Robert Bork, I can't help but think of The Swedish Chef.
Huh? This is Slashdot, right?
--
The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.
I guess it's time to create alt.judges.robert.bork.bork.bork ...
?-|||-----x<*))))><
The Honorable Judges Sporkin and Bork eat pork with forks, popping corks off ports while chortling over court reports of sports of a sordid sort.
Bork, bork, bork!
the evil empire is a joke about reagen and the US GOVERNMENT, not microsoft corp. who is this tomothy? is he retarded? TIMMAH! TIMMAH!
"I believe in innovation, not litigation."
(I almost expected him to follow with "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit". But I digress.)
Anyway, this statement could have -- and probably DID -- come straight from the mouths of Microsoft's PR department, probably in the same envelope as a campaign contribution (to be fair, I'll bet Gore got one too).
Our best hope is that the President's advisors listen to intelligent conservative commentators like George Will, who wrote an excellent column in the Washington Post about Enron, in which he made the following point:
Capitalist economies don't spring up automatically, like crabgrass. They are dependent upon a complex set of laws. Capitalism is a government program.
Will was speaking about laws which require accurate financial disclosure so that people have faith in the market. But the same priciples hold for the right to fair competition. Without that right, where the success of a startup [e.g., Netscape] leading to its imminent demise by those seeking to maintain their control [e.g., Microsoft], why would anyone risk their money to enter the marketplace? The result in such a case is stagnation, and the loss of a healthy economy.
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
Note that lower prices does not necessarily mean a benfit to consumers: If the product you are paying a lower price for is also lower quality, then there is certainly not a clear benefit.
You could also stretch this to say things like "if the merger would stifle innovation in a particular industry it would hurt consumers" (even if prices went down).
He would obviously still be opposed to blocking a merger that (for example) resulted in numerous layoffs at both companies, if the end result did benefit consumers (lower prices and better products).
I was reading Ayn Rand recently (Capitalism: The inknown Ideal, 1967 or so) and she pointed out that in all previous anti-monopoly cases it was the government itself that gave some exclusive rights to the companies and these exclusive rights allowed the companies to grow into the illegal monopolies. The AT&T case supports this statement, but what about Microsoft?
In your opinion, did they (MS) get any exclusive rights from the government or are they the exception of a company which managed to get to this position all by itself?
I think what you're describing is the "Winner-Take-All" idea. Here is an article that mentions it. I don't necessarily condone the remedy in the article but it's still somewhat interesting.
Never underestimate the power of fiber.
Where in the constitution is power granted to government to violate voluntary contracts? Yes, voluntary. The resellers wanted to resell Microsoft products, as cheaply as possible, and so signed the exclusivity contracts. Just because Microsoft is good at bargaining, is it a "monopoly"? The anti-trust laws are so vague that merely breaking the law is a matter of opinion.
People talk about "Microsoft using its monopoly power to..." without recognizing that the only power Microsoft has is the price at which they sell their product.
If the suit had been brought by some reseller who had been defrauded, or someone suing how Internet Explorer is falsely advertized as "compatable" without actually being compatable, all they have to do is prove their case. Demonstrate harm.
This whole "anti-trust" stuff is crap. Anison suing Bufferin because Bufferin merely repackaged the asperine in a sugar coating or whatever.
Microsoft never broke down someones door and forced them to buy a product at gun point. I can't say the same thing about government.
I respect Bork in many ways. He is, unfortunately, a party to this action. He is hardly going to say "government should be a last resort" out of one side of his face, and take Netscape's money to say how evil Microsoft has been out of the other side. Principle says "Then make a better product." Pragmatism says, "Oh, for a fee, I'll change the principle."
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
How is this a 5?
Summary: I'm a lawyer, bork's smart, he wasn't always about to fall off the right edge of the earth politically
I mean, honestly, I don't have anything better to say, but how did the moderation system come up with a 5?
"Evil empire" was first used by Reagan himself to describe the USSR (then lead by Brezhnev, I believe).
sorry, couldn't help myself.
And your answer can be found in the LinuxPlanet interview, sorta between the lines. The article describes how Bork changed the direction of antitrust enforcement from protecting the competitors to protecting the state of competition, i.e., the consumers. This shift implies that monopolists no longer need explicit, exclusive rights... but then again, by adopting a lassez-faire, hands off approach, there can be implicit endorsement of a monopoly.
Just read it.
For those who haven't, here is the summary.
Linuxplanet: Isn't the proposed settlement horseshit.
Bork: Yes, I'd have to say I agree with that.
Insightful - NOT !
Ayn Rand is an authority on nothing. Take everything she says with a massive grain of salt.
The US government is larger today than it has ever been. I'd venture that the percentage of government office computers running Windows is roughly equal to the overall percentage of American office computers running Windows - in other words, friggin' huge. So how much of your paycheck goes to Microsoft every month?
What would be the effect on Microsoft's monopoly if every federal and state (since the state governments are the ones complaining now) government office installed Linux or bought a Mac? If you never had to apply for a government job by submitting your resume as a Word document? If every publicly-funded school stopped teaching kids on Windows? If every government web site complied with HTML standards?
The government takes your money to buy from Microsoft, then it takes more to pay lawyers to bring down Microsoft. God bless America.
grep -ri 'should work'
"was nominated to the United States Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan"
Damn. I think this is the first conservative that actually interprets conservatism for the people. I am impressed.
Generally most conservatived *cough* Bush interprets "small government" as "laissez-faire" which then they perverse into "leave big corporations alone even if they have a monopoly" in and Adam-Smithian belief that "The Invisible Hand" will fix everything. Of course they don't argue because it also fixes their wallets.
It is VERY nice to see a person interpret small government as NOT laissez-faire economics. If the whole Republican party went by that ideology I would vote for them every time.
autodot/0.9 (perl/5.006)
> I am an attorney; this is not legal advise.
Indeed. Do tell--what third-world-level backwater of a state makes lawyers out of people who can't spell "legal advice" properly?
Bloody heck, now my posting on this subject will be rated as "redundant".
Very well said, Elmegil. I'd mod you up if I could.
I remember an interview by Vin Sprynowicz of a state-level politician during campaign season in Nevada. One of his questions, which had to be reworded twice before the politician caught on, was "What kinds of things might someone ask you do to do that, because of state or federal constitutional restrictions, the (office you're running for) cannot do?"
The answer was, "Oh, I think such an excuse would just be a cop-out."
Food for thought.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
This is a really good point. This case was about the browser issue.
Once upon a time, not too many years ago, there was real innovation in the browser market. People could barely keep up with the features coming left and right from Netscape, Spyglass, Mosaic forks, Cyberdog, etc., and features were piled on left an right. Forms! Tables! JavaScript! Java! DHTML!
Then Microsoft crept over the 50% market share mark. Now the new browser feature people get excited about is TABS, for Pete's Sake! They're still trying to get a decent CSS2 implementation done, ECMAScript is stagnant at best, and Java applets still don't work all that reliably.
And it's been a few years. There's no innovation to be found. Yeah, Mozilla has some froody features, and XUL may still kick ass someday, but if you want real innovation, you need competition, and any capitalist can tell you that. If IE had to compete on the open market they might even run lint on it.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I wasn't following politics too much at the time Bork was put forward for the supreme court, but years later I saw him on a William Buckley show where "Free Speech" was debated. (Mark Green, who just lost the NYC mayorality to Bloomberg was on this show too.) Bork argued what seemed to me to be an anti-free speech position (arguing the original intent of the Bill of Rights). He thought it obvious that a lot of sexually-related expression had no place in a civilized society. The example he kept giving of expression going too far was (I kid you not) "Michael Jackson gyrating his hips..."
Off topic? Maybe. But for me this clinched my impression of Bork as someone I not only disagreed with, but who seemed damned-right retarded.
IANAL, but there must be more to consumer 'benefit' that simply tomorrow's retail prices.
What good does it do for consumers to pay lower prices tomorrow, but inflated monopoly or collusion prices 5 years from now become some anti-trust decision deemed that lower prices tomorrow was in the 'consumer interest'.
What good does it do for consumers to pay lower prices tomorrow because of some anti-trust decision when future innovations that could could create evolutionarily or revolutionarily better products are stifled by that decision?
The trick is, consumer retail prices are easy to measure, and and therefore make for more straightforward cases.
Lawyers like easy cases.
Bork's right-of-conservative political views have severely clouded his judgement in the past on such issues, and, as a Republican, has made many pro-business decisions. Take the case Jones vs. State of Arkansas. Clearly, there was substancial precedent and constitutional law behind that case that should have made the decision rather clear-cut, and yet, as a Justice, he ruled in favor, once again, of big business. He simply can't be viewed as a non-biased legal mind.
While it is all well and good for one's online publication to sport an interview with a big name such as Bork (hey, who doesn't remember the fight to prevent him from his eventual appointment?), it is ultimately meaningless. Perhaps when they can wrangle an interview with someone such as Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I will be impressed. Until then, I will continue to marvel at the ability of the Slashdot community to swallow absolutely anything that comes out of the mouth of anyone who even claims expertise in a field. Hook, line and sinker.
Is your company running tools written by ma
You might want to read a book before posting next time. I can suggest Ludwig von Mises "Human Action" as an excellent trist on the subject.
Here's why capitalism is like crabgrass: Any time property rights are protected to any degree, and freedom to associate is allowed to any degree, people begin to trade their skills and materials with others. If money is available, money is used.
Those with high skills or materials in demand trade their skills or materials at a higher "price" than lesser skills or materials.
Bingo. Capitalism. Supply and demand. A good barber in Kabul the day after the Taliban runs out has more business than a bad barber. No one plans it, the myriad decisions of each individual creates capitalism spontainiously.
So, Eryq, do you wish to say why you believe "capitalism" does not exist except by some plan or decision from On High? Care to give an example? Would you please support your assertion?
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I actually read the article. Carefully. And damn if I don't agree with the grumpy old bastard.
Wow. Either this is a fever dream or reality has just warped.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Can someone point me to a site/registrar who registers .jp domainnames??? Thanx... And no.. I will not fall for the goatse.cx thingie.. ;-P
from: http://www.techlawjournal.com/atr/80421bork.htm
Robert Bork formerly practiced antitrust law, taught antitrust law at Yale Law School for nearly twenty years, and wrote what is perhaps the most influential book on antitrust law in recent decades. (The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself, New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1978.)
It's right here in Newsweek! George Will influencing Bush II! That is the funniest thing I've heard wrt George Will, and my family has a long habit of joking about him. Hell, last week George Will was reviewing _A Beautiful Mind_. Do you think the POTUS should propose more funding for mental health care?
George Will, William Safire, and William F.Buckley are probably the most prominent conservative editorialists. They all know how to turn a phrase beautifully, but their talent is inextricably intertwined with the partisanship. Enron associates such horrible guilt with Washington, especially Bush, that the only response is for them to yell LOUDEST about how horrible it is. That is all George Will is doing. He would still be defending them if the company had managed to escape bankruptcy.
Our capitalist economy formed by eroding the Founding Fathers ideals for the USA. Remember the Boston Tea Party? That's what they thought of monopolies back then. Bush II has already played its hand in the Microsoft case, what the hell do you think they could do now anyway?
You Can't Take Pot Smokers Seriously! No, don't bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over to me.
FratMan
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I just wanted to cite the techlaw piece. And now, with thoughts of you, I'm going to race around my chair while flapping my arms and making clucking sounds.
Cluck, cluck, cluck cluck cluck!
Quit yer whining
Pre-windows, the government contracts said "IBM Compatable."
Then they said, "Windows Compatable." So did most big companies, because of the economies of scale.
When I was working on a government pre-"Internet" internet project, using SunOS, I had to repeatedly ask for things to be sent to me in something other than MS-Word format. We even had a Windows machine for just such things.
I don't blame the government for standardizing, it's cheaper that way. Now, with good cheap alternatives to Windows, I believe OpenSource(tm) solutions would be cheaper, but I'm not writing the contracts.
The government bought many millions of copies of Windows and MS Office, then upgrades, upgrades, upgrades, etc. To then prosecute Microsoft for being "too big" smells of hypocrisy.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
... in restoring competition? One of the assumptions behind anti-trust is that business practices valid for small agressive companies are not legal for monopolies. But imposing behaviour constraints seems to be like pissing in the wind ... basically if the officers are not legally responsible for their corporate culture (e.g. FUD sales tactics) then there is no incentive to alter their mindset.
.NET cough)
Perhaps its it time to consider identifying where the competitive pressure has failed and why it is os. Competition refers to more than the guy trying to do unto thee what you're trying to do unto them. It also includes substitute goods/services, threat of entry, pricing power of suppliers, and pricing power of buyers. Here we see specific tactics that should be considered as hindering competition
- denial of interoperability to avoid subsitution
- rapid change of APIs to impose high conversion costs to smaller entrants (cough
- extend and embrace to extinguish markets created by more gung-ho startups
- distribution contracts that forbid secondary sales
The last component is a subtle one as it disguises a depreciating service (license) as a phsycial good (CPU). If people were free to sell their MS software license (substitute Linux instead say) on their OEM box then the market price for MS software would be established by the free market which would estimate the half-life of a specific version of their OS/app. Unfortunately a free market does not serve the needs of a monopolist as people can then have an alternative to compare the cost of other features (such as lack of security).
So what can the legal system do to help restore competition to the software market? I would recommend requirements that licenses/terms of usage be written in clear language rather than legalese, that any promises (spam-free mail) be backed up by some form of performance bond, and that termination/opt-out clauses be subject to scrutiny by fair trading groups.
LL
For one, the government hasn't violated any contracts between Microsoft and computer vendors, at least not yet. They're still in full force at this time.
For two, what makes the contracts illegal is that Microsoft was requiring many vendors to sign an exclusivity agreement if they wanted to ship computers with Windows. It wasn't a matter of getting a volume discount. They couldn't resell Windows period if they didn't sign the contract. Even if they went down to the local store and purchased a boxed copy at full retail and bundled the unopened box with the computer, without preloading Windows onto the computer itself, it would still be in violation of Microsoft's terms.
Ayn Rand is an authority on nothing. Take everything she says with a massive grain of salt.
Cool. Now, what advice would you offer on how to take everything said by some random dude called "nomadic" on Slashdot?
Of course the government granted exclusive rights to Microsoft, in the form of copyright protection and software patents. It has been suggested that when companies use such privileges illegally, they ought to lose them. It seems a logical enough proposition to me.... Of course, my lawyer friends think I'm nuts for believing this.
Your baseball card analogy is only valid in the current era of late Capitalism. Those cards weren't worth sh!t 100 years ago, all kids could do was read the stats. Oddly enough, if you extract the children from Capitalism they do quite nicely. I know parents, uber-Bohemian Harvard types, who wouldn't buy their 8-year-old baseball cards. So he used Photoshop to create his own, which he then traded with his friends. Of course, that's Communist nonsense when the people own the means of production!
From historychannel.com:
"Three of the very best men in the Nixon administration have been ousted from it because they put loyalty to the law of our land above loyalty to Richard Nixon." (October 20, 1973)
-Alan Cranston, U.S. senator of California
On October 20, 1973, U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson resigned after refusing to fire special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox, who earlier in the day had announced that he would not accept White House summaries of the Watergate tapes. The Watergate tapes, subpoenaed three months before under the authority of the Senate, were official recordings of White House conversations that were believed to heavily implicate the president and his staff in the Watergate affair. Hours after Richardson resigned, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, also unwilling to fire Cox, likewise handed in his resignation. Finally, Solicitor General Robert Bork agreed to fire the special prosecutor. Later that night, Alan Cranston, a Democratic senator, reacted to what became known as the "Saturday Night Massacre." On Capitol Hill, the event galvanized congressional outrage at President Nixon's conduct, and on October 23, even as the president finally agreed to turn over the tapes, eight impeachment resolutions were introduced against him in the House of Representatives.
The only difference between "conservative" and "liberal" is in what things about your life they wish to control through government force.
Some people suggest it's "economic control" verses "private choice control", but it all ends up being control.
I consider Bork to be a hypocrite in so far that he both argues for "limited governemnt" and for "one that enforces what I think is right."
Freedom means freedom to do what other people find objectionable, the limit being force or fraud.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The second amendment is a perfect example of this. It says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You can read this in few ways. In one sense this may suggest that you only should be able to bear arms for the purposes of defending the state. Basically that you need to have guns for things like the national guards, etc. But you can focus on the "free" part of that comment and read that the average citizen should have the right to have a weapon to defend their freedom from those within the state who would take it.
Personally I find the interpretability of the constitution to be one of its most valuable assets. It gives our nation a common thread to work from but it also provides flexibility to accomodate for changing attitudes.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
You demonatrate my point. They wanted to package Microsoft products, and Microsoft negotiated contracts in Microsoft's favor.
If you don't like how restrictive Microsoft is in their contracts, don't use their products. You Do Have That Choice.
Blast, I'm replying to a coward again. I gotta get a shrink.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Am I the only one who feels like this interview never took place and the author just took comments that the Judge made to somebody else and put statements around them to make it sound like an interview? I mean we never see the actual questions that he is answering.
Here is an example:
Microsoft is evil, very evil. I hear they torture little boys and feed them to Bill Gates. He cruches their bones and spits out the cartilage.
Judge Bork - "Yes. I hear that can be very detrimental to society."
What ever happened to a straight question/answer session without all the bullshit posturing and editorializing in between.
The government has helped MS immensely. Basically MS pays a lot less taxes than any real business. They are able to write off huge amounts of "loss" due to software "piracy".
If anything, piracy helped MS become what they are today, so it's doubleplus good for them.
These fictional losses they get to take against their income, and therefore pay very little taxes, relative to real businesses.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
You forgot the last reason Bork is important--he was the Nixon flunky (Solicitor General, I believe), who acted in the capacity of Attorney General to fire Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox, after Elliott Richardson refused to do it, and his deputy Ruckelshaus also refused. How anyone could "widely respect him for his integrity" after that is a mystery to me.
During the Watergate scandal, Archibald Cox (the first ever independent prosecutor, a la Ken Starr) faced down the Whitehouse in an (ultimately succesful) effort to unearth damning evidence of criminal activity by both President Nixon and Veep Spiro Agnew.
Nixon wanted to fire Cox, but it wasn't in his power to do so. As an Independent Prosecutor, Cox was subordinate only to the Attorney General, Elliot Richardson. So Nixon demanded that Richardson fire Cox. This was an appalling abuse of power. Nixon essentially threw out the rule of law to satisfy his political ends. In an act of great courage, Richardson refused to comply. So Nixon fired him. Then he promoted the Deputy A.G. to acting A.G. and gave him the same order --- fire Cox. Again, a refusal; and again Nixon fired the guy. Next in line at the Justice Dept was the Solicitor General. At the time, this was none other than our friend Robert Bork. Nixon made him acting A.G. and ordered him to fire Cox. Bork consented and fired him. As an added bonus, he sent FBI agents over to the Prosecutor's office to seal it off, temporarily shutting down the investigation of the President.
This was the famous "Saturday Night Massacre" --- the most serious constitutional crisis ever faced by the United States, in fact. Bork's decision to cave in to Nixon's unconstitutional power grab forever marked him in the eyes of many Americans, and not just Democrats, either. When Reagan nominated him for the Supreme Court, the possibility of having someone who had helped Richard Nixon flaunt the rule of law sitting on the highest court in the land was just too much for many to bear. And so he was borked.
People talk about "Microsoft using its monopoly power to..." without recognizing that the only power Microsoft has is the price at which they sell their product.
That's not quite true, but it's a good start. You realize, with their market share, that this power means that Microsoft could instantly destroy Dell, Gateway, Compaq, or any other computer manufacturing company they choose by simply raising that OEM's prices through the roof? That they could bring about such a destruction a bit more slowly by simply raising OEM costs for Windows and Offices up to the retail price? And that the OEMs know this, and so are forced to sign whatever anticompetitive agreement Microsoft wants in order to stay alive?
If you're so libertarian that you don't have any problem with abuse of monopoly power, then what's your problem with the government? Just tell yourself, "The government owns all land within it's borders, and 'property deeds' are just end user license agreements that let me use the land as long as I follow the government's laws." Then you can think of the government as just the luckiest of the big corporations, you can happily bend over for them too, and everything should be A-OK.
Sorry, but you are an uneducated fool. Don't take it personally, ignorance is curable so there is hope for you.
The only way you can read the 2nd Amendment to not grant each and every citizen the right to keep and bear arms is to assume the Founding Fathers were enshrining the right for the Army to have guns. Since that reading is totally daft, anybody with the ability to read and reason can figure out what the plain meaning of the 2nd was.
Back in the day the Bill of Rights was written the average level of literacy was sufficient that everyone understood and could debate the fine points of the Constituition and Bill of Rights. Sadly we now live in an age where a President of the United States can argue the meaning of "is" and we all spend weeks in confusion. Truly we are doomed.
Democrat delenda est
and Microsoft dances away from this with a slap on the wrist. The only saving grace I can think of is that this will go a long way towards fueling the fires of Microsoft paranoia brewing outside the US. More non-US governments will look seriously for Microsoft-free solutions as it becomes crystal clear that the US goverment and Microsoft are sharing the same toothbrush and underwear.
What nonsense. They do NOT get to deduct "losses" from piracy, because those cannot be quantified in any form that the IRS would find acceptable.
Before you start praising the supposed high moral character of Bork, perhaps you should take in a little history lesson:
On Oct. 20, 1973, Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson resigned in protest rather than carry out Richard Nixon's order to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. His deputy, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was fired. Nixon's Solicitor General, Robert H. Bork, who was next in command, carried out Nixon's orders and fired Cox.
Anyone who would help Nixon cover up Watergate by firing the Watergate Special Prosecutor lacks the ethics, integrity, and judgement to serve as a Justice of the Supreme Court. I, for one, am happy that the Democrats hae real integrity and blocked the appointment of that scoundrel.
Some damn fool moderator got taken. You lazy bastards.
Exactly what line on their income statement (man, I hope that's not a temporary link...) does the loss due to piracy fit into? How could they write off such a loss without writing the creation of the pirated software as a revenue in the first place? Does the "lost software" appear on their balance sheet anywhere?
I disagree that MS has enjoyed governmental help to achieve thier monopoly.
For the government's use of MS products, I think they are victims of MS's monopoly, not creators of it. I don't see any collusion between MS and the gov to install MS products exclusively on gov computers. The majority of gov computers use MS because it is the de facto industry standard. Everyone uses MS Word, so you better use software that can read MS Word docs. The majority of off the shelf software runs on Windows, so if you want to use off the shelf software, you better run Windows. The government is no different in this respect than the rest of the country. The gov didn't buy MS products exclusively early on, helping to create the monopoly. They gradually moved to it as the corporate and private worlds did.
As for tax breaks and writeoffs, I am unaware that MS gets any different treatment in that respect than any other large software manufacturer.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
This interview is simply amazing. After reading it, I strongly believe that Robert Bork is very knowledgeable in his field of work, and at the same time, he understands technology--and the business of technology--quite well, making him the ideal person to bridge the gaps, so to speak, between corporate executives, legal departments, and the technical community.
I applaud Robert Bork for having the interview with LinuxPlanet, and for making such a good impression in the technical community.
Popular misconceptions to the contrary, Adam Smith never believed that the "Invisible Hand" would fix everything. I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but for instance he is famous for writing that if you get any two or more merchants together, they are sure to conspire against free competition in the market.
Adam Smith is one of those writers who has so much more insight and subtlety than their popular image. There are few general principles of modern economics that Smith did not anticipate. There are not many figures writing in other fields of social science or natural science in the 1700's for whom we could say the same.
Smith argued against the big government-protected monopolies of his time, and it would be perfectly consistent for him to support breaking up the (market-generated) Microsoft monopoly.
John Gallup
Patriotism is the conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born there. (GBS)
I've never had any use for Bork since I heard that he wrote that he found civil rights legislation stopping restaurant owners from discriminating on racial grounds "repugnant", then later upheld Georgia (I think) law under which sex (in this case, gay) between consenting adults in their own home could be illegal and the police could come in and arrest them. For this dipshit, government interference is bad - unless it's interfering in something he's against, then it's OK. (Of course, I'm inconsistent in the opposite direction, but I think it's a much better argument that the government DOES have a place in restaurants and NOT in the bedroom.)
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Goin for a cheap funny. C'mon mods give it up!
Get this:
1) Bork
2) Bork
3) Bork
Damn Sweedes.
sounds just like borg
The real reason is just staring him in the face and yet he chooses to dodge it at every step: Linux is dying. It is playing catchup trying to reinvent the wheel---things which have been in OSes like Windows and BSD, the true successor of UNIX. The last LinuxWorld was a bust. All the Linux companies are going belly up. BSD is taking over in the server market. Linux is dying at last.
Netscape had a monopoly and blew it. When faced with an obvious competitive threat from the bundled and free Explorer, they basically didn't take any effective measures to protect their market share.
Have consumers, in net, been harmed by Microsoft's giving the browser away for free, bundled?
On the harm side, there's the theoretical loss of some unknown benefits of competition, and the hypothetical threat that Microsoft may yet someday use its monopoly to price gouge.
On the benefit side, consumers don't have to buy Explorer separately or download it and install it separately or even think about it very much. It provides some small benefits through tight integration with the Windows interface - radically exaggerated by Microsoft, of course.
So, by Bork's theory of harm to consumers as the standard for application of anti-trust - where's the big net harm to consumers?
All Microsoft did was take reasonable steps to maintain it's market share in the software platform business, in the face of a competitor that publically bragged that they were going to put an end to Microsoft's dominance. If you pull the lion's tail, you shouldn't complain about being mauled and eaten. STUPID!
Netscape could have offered to license their browser to Microsoft on very reasonable terms for bundling with Windows, back when Explorer was just an idea. They could have built up a wall of proprietary technologies that they licensed to web content creators. Fully automatic and invisible browser updates sure wouldn't have hurt their existing market share. They could have done an AOL, and sent free CDs around the country - or joined forces with AOL sooner. They had many options, and again - their egos and greed made them blow it.
I'm not surprised that Bork opposes that joke of a deal. While he's certainly been a critic of antitrust law in general, he at least sticks to his principles. Many "conservatives" bash the antitrust case out of either deference to Micro$oft (a large campaign contributor) or sheer ignorance.
Many people overlook another conservative who chose to follow the law and base his thinking on the facts: Thomas Penfield Jackson...the judge in the original antitrust case. Jackson too was appointed by Reagan. In fact, he was appointed specifically to quash antitrust cases that came his way. But U.S. vs. Microsoft was just too compelling...they openly flaunted the law and even went so far as to fabricate evidence (the infamous video showing how difficult it was to remove IE). His findings of fact in the case, which were upheld by the appellate court, paint a picture of an extremely arrogant and socially destructive corporation openly engaging in socially destructive practices in clear violation of the law of the land.
I long for the days when there were still principled conservatives to be found in positions of power. I can respect an honest difference of opinion...but that's rare anymore. In a world where most conservatives are Enron conservatives it's nice to see someone take a principled stand (Bork's work for Netscape notwithstanding).
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
I believe MS doesn't get to pay any taxes because of all the stock options they give out. Stock option are considered expendetures or liabilities (any accountants here?). So even though MS is raking on cash, their income statement will show that they didn't make any money.
I would say that Ayn Rand is wrong in this case. What governmental protections did Standard Oil, or the Sugar and Tobacco Trusts receive? I think AT&T is the exception here, not the rule.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
Bork blew it when he made the "intellectual Feast" statement. I remember Hiding my face in my hands when he said that. I knew he blew it, and felt sorry for him. He made it appear that he only saw the court as an intellectual game. That statement made him look clueless, unable to see that his decisions had an effect on real people. I know he knew he screwed up, when he said that. How could he not see that.
His appointment was a political payoff. Remember when Nixon couldn't find anyone to fire Archibald Cox? Well he found one, Robert Bork. The appointment was his reward.
Bork wasn't a bad guy, but he just blew his job interview real bad.
Yeah, I am a Liberal too.
photosMy Photostream
During the Reagan era, the term "Evil Empire" generally meant something else....
'course, times change...
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
I hear you!
I posted the original message from my office Windows PC (used mostly as an X-terminal to our SUN cluster, and a sh***y one), now I'm at my home all-Linux box. I know why I have that Win box on my office desk (and it definitely is not my choice). One reason is that it is easier for the support people to take care of just one OS (and I am not paid for taking care of my computer, however more able I would be in that). The other reason is that if a customer (_government_ one, in our case) sends me a file, I better read it right away and do not complain about Word or Excel format. But these are trivial reasons, the company just thinks that it saves some money (the extra time I spend when Windows crash does not count!) and get some more, I can understand that...
I was just curious if anyone remembers any saucy details of MS past relations with the Gov, really...
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
She did not write about AT&T, remember, the copy I was reading is ~67 :), but about railroads (got land rights for cheap), GE (were asked to agree on a fixed prices during WWII and prosecuted later for price fixing), etc. I can not find the exact passage rigth now.
:)
AT&T is just an obvious case for us, younger techie crowd...
I think she did mention Standard Oil in support of her claim, I'm not sure about Sugar Tobacco Trusts though.
Capitalism involves buyers and sellers - each maximizing their welfare. Buyers do not care about capitalism, they care about themselves. They want to get the most they can for as little as possible. Sellers do not care about capitalism either. They want to sell as little as possible for as much as they can get. Capitalism occurs when these two forces come together and some reasonable level of balance is achieved between them.....that is sellers selling the things that buyers need or want at a price they can afford or are otherwise willing to pay. It's possible for the system to go out of balance. Eventually the balance will be regained. It is the role of government (WRT capitalism) to ensure that this balance is regained in a reasonable period of time so as to not threaten the survival of our Republic. We accept that this government intervention involves risk. They may get involved too late, too soon, too much, or too little. But we accept this risk because its possible for the system to become chaotic....
Government also has the job of protecting us from each other - our lives and property. We leave this protection to them so that force is used in a consistent manner as dictated by the majority of voters and our constitution.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
I guess that Standard Oil could be considered under that reasoning as well, then. They had a strangle-hold on the railroads, who were helped by the gov't, and with the transitive property of anti-trust, they had gov't help.
But it gets messy when theory meets practice.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
It might have saved the country a lot of grief if someone from the Joints Chiefs of Staff went over to the Supreme Court and had the judges tell Cox in no uncertain terms to STFU until after thing scooled down a bit.
Kissinger did some really interesting work in ending that war.
Where were all of the post Watergate Dem's when the real massacres were going on in the killing fields of Cambodia.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
He is not suggesting that capitalism is centrally controlled, because of course it isn't. He was merely pointing out that governmental functions such as the SEC and the Federal Reserve Bank are some of the cornerstones of capitalism -- they set the rules by which the U.S. financial system survives and thrives.
Does governmental policy "promote capitalism"? Damn right it does. Is its role "very, very limited"? Ask a CFO how important the Federal Reserve Chairman is to economic policy.
The federal government's role in capitalism is not to provide it, or to control it, but literally to help govern it.
The line between governance and control is discrete. If an economy is centrally controlled, it is communism. Conversely, an economy without rules is anarchy.
Capitalism is a free market system with rules. George Will knows that.
"Folks just call him Buckethead." -- Les Claypool
Currency is a perfect example of something provided by private individuals for thousands of years, at least. When apropriated by governments, for instance when the English King decided to mint his own coins, they did so with the excuse that they were doing "quality assurance."
However, a funny thing started happening. Gold coins circulated through the Kings coffers were losing weight. They were being peeled for gold in itty bitty increments, the resultant bits being made into more coins. Inflation.
In order to prevent competition to such things, governments then mandated that only their issued bills/coins are "money". They then get to decide what is money, and print more when convenient. More inflation.
It's astounding that the history of currency, of a continual slow deflation as manufacturing and distribution became more efficient, that savings became more valuable over time, has been lost. I believe that history has been deliberately supressed by those who print "money" because of the astounding profits they enjoy with their legislated monopoly.
Guess what? An ounce of gold a hundred years ago bought a good suit. It still does. In real currency terms, the old slow process continues. It is only in fiat "money" printed by government that has given us the great depressions, the bubble economies, great currency instabilities, and the like.
It takes a very great deal of deliberate ignorance and I dare say stupidity to "forget" that the "great depression" only happened after the founding of the Federal Reserve, designed to prevent just that sort of thing, or at least that's what was said by those who designed it.
Number 3 is another falacy, taught to you by the politicans who benefit from selling those limited liability contracts called "corporations", and then defending those who bought them from the reprocussions of their own actions. That you can defend such hypocrisy with a straight face demonstrates the remarkable effectiveness of government schooling.
And number 2? Defense of contracts? Tell that to the Microsoft bashers who are so furious that Microsoft was able to negotiate contracts that favored Microsoft. Anti-trust legislation defeats your point number 2 very well indeed.
There is also the recent decision backing the laws that defeat employer/employee contracts concerning arbitration. Another "contract" violated by government. How much more is needed before you realize that one of the most profitable business government is in is enforcing contract violations?
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The Chinese are already using better software than Microsoft. Look up "Red Flag Linux".
And since I'm no fan of Microsoft software, your accusations are falicious on their face.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Did you ever read the arguments and documentation behind the inclusion of the "interstate commerce clause"? It's fascinating reading.
The instigation and reasoning was that individual states were erecting trade barriers against products/labor in other states. This was considered "bad". In fact, this was one major reason used to call the Constitutional Convention at all.
So, by a "strict constructionist" interpretation, the only use of the interstate commerce clause is negative: to prevent any restrictions on the flow of material, labor or produce across state lines. It placed such restrictions outside of the perview of the states.
Even the commentators of the time, such as Alexander Hamilton, had to address how this clause might be abused. The "Anti Federalists" were agast that the Fed.Gov was being granted control over anything that might possibly cross state lines, a concern that has since been proven overly optimistic in even its most dire warnings. Every abuse they warned about has come to pass, and far, far more.
It's too bad that the Federalist papers are no longer taught in the government schools. You can bet that the Anti-Federalist papers were avoided like the plague!
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
hmmmm first he talks about taking a break and then getting ready for the next big thing and then he says:
NewsForge: How about original games native to Linux?
Draeker: If I were going to start a new Linux game company tomorrow that's what I would do.
maybe after the break thats what he'll do.. not be optimistic.. but the idea of cool original games for linux is just thrilling.. granted tux racer was pretty original.. but the linux community needs something more in the way of games..
Microsoft never broke down someones door and forced them to buy a product at gun point.
Guns are so last century. In the digital age violence takes other forms. What Microsoft have done is to destroy competing products by changing the underlying OS so they no longer work.
To me that is similar to Chrysler competing with Ford by bombing their factories. I realize there are also differences, but to my libertarian instincts, such sabotage must be wrong, even if Mill or Rand didn't have the foresight to figure out exactly how to treat software in a natural rights manner.
That's not to mention all the theft of intellectual property and contract violations that is standard practice in Redmond.
Of course, as you point out, the actual laws that Microsoft has been caught by are doubtful in many ways, but that doesn't mean that Gates and his gang are not a bunch of ruthless criminals.
Ecceptunce-a ooff zee prupused settlement in U.S. f. Meecrusufft vuoold cleer zee rued fur zee cumpuny tu ixtend its munupuly tu must iff nut ell espects ooff cumpooteeng, seys Joodge-a Rubert H. Bork.
Bork Bork Bork!
"I dun't theenk it dues unytheeng tu Meecrusufft," seeed Bork in un interfeeoo veet Leenoox Plunet. "I theenk it joost lets zeem cunteenooe-a es zeey vere-a beffure-a."
Iff thet heppens, he-a seys, Meecrusufft's cuntrul is leekely tu ixtend beyund zee sufftvere-a indoostry, leedeeng tu munupuleees in erees incloodeeng oonleene-a eccess und zee Internet.
Bork Bork Bork!
Zee reeleety ooff Joodge-a Bork is fer mure-a interesteeng thun zee cereecetoore-a screebbled by hees inemeees, vhu deesegree-a veet hees "streect cunstroocshuneest" feeoo -- shered veet zee Fuoondeeng Fezeers -- thet gufernment is zee lest resurt, nut zee furst, fur sulooshuns tu suceeetel vues.
Bork Bork Bork!
He-a is knoon cheeeffly fur zee tremenduoos perteesun bettle-a thet iroopted vhee he-a ves numeeneted tu zee Uneeted Stetes Soopreme-a Cuoort by Preseedent Runeld Reegun, und thet, tuu, is sed. Fur hees ixpereeence-a in zee lev, ispeceeelly untee-troost lev, is ixtenseefe-a, es is hees schulersheep. He-a hes serfed es curcooeet joodge-a, U.S. Cuoort ooff Eppeels fur zee Deestrict ooff Culoombeea (vheech hes heerd tvu U.S. f. Meecrusufft ceses in zee teeme-a seence-a he-a lefft zee bench), suleecitur generel, und ecteeng etturney generel ooff zee Uneeted Stetes, es vell es 17 yeers es a pruffessur et Yele-a Lev Schuul und 12 yeers in preefete-a precteece-a. He-a is a seneeur felloo et zee Emereecun Interpreese-a Insteetoote-a. Hees buuks incloode-a Sluoocheeng tooerds Gumurreh: Mudern Leeberelism und Emereecun Decleene-a (1996), Zee Unteetroost Peredux: A Puleecy et Ver Veet Itselff (secund ideeshun, 1993), und Zee Tempteeng ooff Emereeca: zee Puleeticel Sedoocshun ooff zee Lev (1989). Poobleeshed in a veede-a fereeety ooff pereeudicels, und freqooent netvurk telefeesiun legel unelyst, Joodge-a Bork hulds B.A. und J.D. degrees frum zee Uneefersity ooff Cheecegu.
Bork Bork Bork!
Bork deed vurk fur Netscepe-a in cunnecshun veet zee unteetroost cese-a und hes feeled memurunda in fefur ooff a feending egeeenst Meecrusufft.
Bork Bork Bork!
Boy - this guy hit the nail right on the head... Anyone still looking for a good idea of what to write in their emails for the Tunney Act, ought to take note, and cite some of the Judge's ideas..
"Some of the remedies that various observers, including me, have thought appropriate are for Microsoft's preload agreements to be vacated and new ones prohibited, the opening of Microsoft's office suite data file formats, and the submission of present and future Microsoft networking protocols to an independent open standards body."
Excellently put.
"Just tell him ya did it! That's what he wants to hear anyway..."
It says that maintaining a "well regulated" militia is necessary for the protection of the state. So you COULD read that as meaning that the only reason people are granted that right is for the creating of such a militia. Given the existence of the national guard, a well regulated militia, it may not necessitate that all citizens should bear arms.
Can you honestly sit there and tell me that the all the gun owners in this country somehow make up a militia, well regulated or no? If there reason for the rule is for the purposes of forming militia it is legitimate to argue that it isn't necessary for all people to have weapons.
Now, having said that, I personally tend to take the view that there needs to be a balance. That the citizenry should be able to have guns, but that there's a limit. And if you look at how our laws are constructed that is true. But if you look at the constitution it doesn't say anything about a balanced set of regulation. If you focus on the "not be infringed" part, then our existing gun laws are a blatant violation of the 2nd amendment, but they sure as hell hold up in court. On the other hand, if you look at the first part, bringing up a well regulated militia, then it suggests that there's a reason for the guns, but that it's not a broad scope approval of all guns for all people.
By the way, by your interpretation of this amendment, I have the legal right to bear a nuclear weapon. I mean come on, if I can't aren't my rights being infringed?
Anyhow, for futher reading on the debate that surronds the second amendment, check out:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I think their business practices deserve crushing, preferably by atomic bomb if my emotions were to be indulged in.
However, I prefer to do it by not using their product. And since Microsoft cannot compell use of their product, unlike government, I am able to.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
The fact is that 90% of PC users are as thick as a ton of bricks, and think that if they have a computer that runs Windows, it is NOT PHYSICALY CAPABLE of running another OS (not that they know what an OS is).
They think that if the have MS Windows, they must buy MS word, anything else is not compatibubble, Hell more than half can't tell Word from Windows anyway. Yes folks its true - half of all PC users are of below average intelligence!
Even when you tell them "the reason you get the message Your application has committed an imoral act, and will go directly to hell" is because they bought software from William Gates, they respond "I have to, I use Windows". (These are probably the same morons that buy Ford cars. I have a Mondeo, so I should know :-)
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
...the Cambodians killed by Pol Pot or the Cambodians killed by Richard Nixon during the carpet bombing used to rid the South Vietnamese and Cambodian countryside of the evil villagers supporting South Vietnamese...er I mean North Vietnamese soldiers in the field. (See we had to call them North Vietnamese so that they could be labeled invaders. If we called them South Vietnamese that would make us the invaders now wouldn't it.)
I want to be alone with the sandwich
>'benefit' that simply tomorrow's retail prices.
Of course there is, and the analysis is not that simplistic. I'm not going to be able to explain detailed economic analysis in a page or two (and If I did, it would publish in a journal, not here).
Price is the example. Consumer welfare is the standard. Bork isn't out on the fringe of the Chicago school that thinks one firm is enough for competition (it's an honest argument; I just don't buy it).
If it created monopoly power, Bork would be against it.
Note that Bork was highly suspicious of the predatory pricing argument, as (at the time he wrote) there were other explanations for all the past cases. Microsoft seemes to be a better example, and possibly the first.
Again, Bork is saying that microsoft's pattern of behavior is *bad*, and anti-competitive--andthis from the father of the school of thought that opened the way for more mergers.
hawk
Bork *expected* the crisis to escalate upon the firing (as would *anyone* who gave it serious thought). He was also concerned about the justice department--he was the only senior official left, and *someone* had to mind the store.
To suggest that he thought that this would in *any* way assist the coverup is to be willfully ignorant. Suggesting that integrity was at all involved in the Borking of the nomination shows a loose grip on reality--put the crack pipe down.
hawk
The topic? The Evil Empire's court settlement.
Wow, I had no idea that the former Soviet Union had even sued anyone.
He's been so taken over by laissez faire conservatives and libertarians who've never actually read him, that most people don't even know what he stood for anymore. If any of them actually picked up a copy of Wealth of Nations once in their lives, they'd see quotes like this:
....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'
The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state
> IANAL, but there must be more to
> consumer 'benefit' that simply tomorrow's
> retail prices.
Why?
> What good does it do for consumers to pay lower
> prices tomorrow, but inflated monopoly or
> collusion prices 5 years from now become some
> anti-trust decision deemed that lower prices
> tomorrow was in the 'consumer interest'.
What good does it do for consumers to pay inflated prices *now* because there might be some highly theoretical price collusion five years from now? Deal with the monopoly price collusion when it occurs!
Chris Mattern
In your opinion, did they (MS) get any exclusive rights from the government or are they the exception of a company which managed to get to this position all by itself?
"Congress shall have the Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8)
I don't think Microsoft would be in a monopoly position without these grants of exclusive rights in the forms of copyright and patent protection.
Dingdingdingding! We have a winner! After reading much bullshit about, "Well, the government buys MS software", and other stuff that misses the point, someone Gets It.
Chris Mattern
switch (right) {
// 1st amendment:
// 2nd amendment:
// 9th amendment:
case speech: return true;
case arms: return true;
case other:
default: return true;
}
It's hard to take someone seriously who doesn't know the difference between "flaunt" (display conspicuously) and "flout"
How exactly is "murder" an argument from the absurd? It's something that happens every day, not some hypothetical uber-crime that we may never hear of in our lifetimes.
Civil damages aren't exactly the best deterrent to crime, either. Do you think all the muggers out there are maintaining stockpiles of cash or buying insurance to pay restitution with if they get caught?
The problem is that if a suffienctly large company feels like it, they can drive their competors out of business. For example, a large software company can give away a product, while their smaller competitor cannot afford to do so. Later on, the larger company is free to raise their prices again, knowing that there is no competition.
Hold on there.
Courts have a hard enough time figuring out 1) what happened, and 2) what is happening now. Asking them to be crystal ball jockeys is not fair. They deal with the past, the present, and (at best) the near future. If they can put it off until it is clearer (the doctrine of "ripeness") they generally will.
For what it's worth, I 'll go a little farther. Ayn Rand is an idiot.
Don't focus on the expositional clause, focus on the meat of the matter; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The phrase "the People" is used multiple places in the Bill of Rights, there is no debate that it means each individual citizen in any of the other instances. Why do gun control advocates of every stripe insist that in this ONE instance, when the Founders say "the People" they really meant to say "the State." Had the 1st Amendment had a preface saying "Because an informed electorate is essential to a Free State, blah, blah, blah..." would you be claiming this means that only State licensed presses are protected?
The National Guard would be what the Founders would have called a "select militia" and they didn't like that idea at all. They tried damn hard to make a sizable standing army in peacetime impractical, but times changed. In their day, you could call up the militia and the arms that folks had were pretty much good enough for military service. The army just had to add cannon, other large items and logistics, although some of the larger militia companies had their own cannon. Expecting private militias to have Armored Cavalry units ready to come forth when summoned into active service is probably asking too much.
The reason the gun laws hold up is that the government goes to great pains to make 2nd amendment cases never make it to the Supreme Court because they (especially the current court) would be very inclined to focus on that "shall not be infringed" part.
As for personal nukes, I figure a line of some sort will be drawn when the Supremes do get a case. I'd be able to live with the line at crew served weapons. Small arms unlimited, crew served only in some organized militia unit. Reserve weapons of mass destruction for State & Federal armed forces.
Democrat delenda est
Of course, "militia" isn't everyone either, it's all males 16 to 45 as defined by the same people who wrote the 2nd amendment.
How about "A well educated electorate..." and then asking if only registered voters are therefore allowed to own books?
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics