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."
"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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
That is a warped view. Capitalism, at it's heart, is free commerce. I'll grant you that the economic system we have today is called "capitalism", but it's really capitalism's dowdy cousin, "sort-of capitalism".
The first condition of Capitalism is availability of people who lack the tools to produce on their own and thus must sell their labor. The second is a government that sanctions and enforces contracts and property rights, without which capital can neither accumulate nor contract with labor.
This is not correct. The first condition of capitalism is supply, the second is demand. You are stuck on the idea that capitalism needs government intervention in order to function.
Even a stable currency isn't *neccessary* for capitalism (not that our government is providing us with one): barter and trade work interchangably with dollars and cents. The convenience of a single currency, and the standardization (and enforcement) of rules of commerce (i.e. the SEC) are just that: conveniences. They are not, repeat NOT neccessary for capitalism to exist.
Milton and Rose Friedeman described money in this way:
There are four ways for money to move
1. You spend your money on yourself. You get exactly what you want at the best price.
2. You spend your money on other people. You get the best price, but you don't care as much about pleasing the recipient. This is why you got underwear for Christmas.
3. You spend other people's money on yourself. You get exactly what you want, but at any old price. This is why 20-year-old second wives of 55-year-old men drive convertible BMWs.
4. You spend other people's money on other people. Nobody gives two shakes about price, quality, or suitability of purpose.
Capitalism works in the first area. Government works in the fourth. They mix poorly, and whereas #1 can begat #4, the reverse is almost never true.
There isn't any historical reference to capitalism absent these two conditions. Buying and selling isn't capitalism, it's commerce. Capitalism is buying and selling other people's work.
Sure there is: look at the origins and beginning of America. People living out West did well enough without the benefit of the SEC, the dollar, or even Alan Greenspan. If you grew corn, you traded that corn for a cow when you wanted milk or meat. If you wanted a new plow, you bought it with gold you got from selling your corn to hungry miners. If people didn't trust their gold assayer, he got shot.
Modern capitalism is a dog's breakfast of free market, socialism, and political chicanery. Pure capitalism is based in the free market.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.