Gore: White House May Get Involved in MS Settlement Talks

Amigan writes " C|Net news.com is reporting on VP Al Gore's visit to Microsoft's campus today includes a statement from the Vice President that "...he expected that the White House would get involved in any settlement talks between the company and the Justice Department when antitrust remedies get discussed. Why would the White House need to be involved?"

Comments

Gates and Gore having invented the Internet...

[Oms]

...as well as all the other significant advances of modern computing, it's only logical that they should stick up for each other!

Gore

[Fuhrer]

Gore needs public exposure. Everyone thinks he has no brain, and from the things he says it certainly seems like it sometimes.

In any case, for him to be SEEN as doing something (whether he actually does is another matter) will make him look good, taking a tough line on the "evil Microsoft empire" will rake at least some votes for him. He *needs* it cause he needs all the support he can get.

Signifying nothing

[Daffy Duck]

Oh yes, Microsoft employees, although these are not political decisions, the White House will deifnitely be involved. Don't worry. Vote Democrat.

This is meaningless tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear bullshit. Gore won't want to be anywhere near the settlement talks (if there are any settlement talks), because there's no way to gain political advantage from it. He can't very well back his own administration's prosecution of Microsoft AND go to bat for them in settlement talks without the press shredding him for it. Gore's not so hard up for money that he needs Microsoft's support. He just wanted to be seen hanging out with high tech types to show how in tune he is with the new millennium.

Of course, all he said was that the White House would be involved. He didn't say which way. Nice, bland, noncommittal, non-responsive response. Perfect candidate.

Gore's war on illegal copying

[ole]

http://www.bsa.org/government/govhelp. html

"Today, we are declaring war on software piracy... At home or abroad, intellectual property must protected." (Vice President Al Gore, October 1, 1998)

http://www.gnu.org/philoso phy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy

Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.

If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''

As a UK citizen..

[maroberts]

..I have no influence on US elections,

Judging from the transcript Al Gore was sitting on the fence and refused to come down [publicly] on either the side of Microsoft or the DOJ. A bit disappointing for a possible future leader of the country IMHO, especially when the MS case is probably going to have a huge effect one way or the other on the US economy.

The fact that MS is such a large company explains why the White House is tempted to stick its nose in - of course, it may regret being associated with any decision come a few years down the line.

Re:Signifying nothing - Unseen hand

[jsm2]

Without wanting to seem patronising, have you actually read Smith? To use "the invisible hand" as an argument against antitrust law is a pretty damn appalling mangling of "The Wealth of Nations". Smith was absolutely aware of what happens to consumers when powerful companies dominate a marketplace; the judge's argument about "inhibiting innovation" is clearly traceable to Smith.

A couple of quotes from The Wealth of Mations, showing what Smith actually thought about the Invisible Hand in this type of case:

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

"The monopolists, by keeping the market continually understocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate. "

"In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so very manifest, that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question, had not the interest sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. "

You are entirely entitled to your views on Microsoft and the government, but please don't try to claim that Smith shared them (I would also suggest that in supporting Microsoft, you are not perhaps as consistent a libertarian as you think you are).

jsm

It's very simple:

[Alex Belits]

Al Gore needed exposure and money for elections. He scheduled the meeting with what perceived as the most "advanced" company in the area that he is supposed to support, expecting to get positive PR from it to himself, declare his support for everything Microsoft does and look good overall. However before he arrives things turn ugly, and Microsoft suddently has a lot of dirt that Al Gore doesn't want to associate himself with. Microsoft sees any public event with Al "Is there some embarrassing statement about technology I haven't made yet?" Gore as possible PR disaster if anything antitrust-related is mentioned, so they are trying to keep press away.

Al Gore realizes that considering his past praise of Microsoft, meeting behind closed doors will arise suspicions that he is either trying to help Microsoft using his current position, or promise support in the future if he will be elected, so to avoid being perceived as corrupt politician he demands to allow press at the meeting, and tries to avoid the whole issue of Microsoft troubles to be mentioned. Microsofties are trying to play along, however not being politicians they fail to realize that any mentioning of lawsuit will force Al Gore to either declare his support of Microsoft and be at risk of losing points in political battles, or declare the support of government in attempt to keep the image of "supporter of technology". So few dumbasses ask him about antitrust lawsuit, and Al Gore tries to play safe. Yet, not being smart enough to understand where he should switch into "I have no comment and no promises" mode, he gives in, and makes vague, stupid-looking promise to "do something about that" despite being in no position to do that.

Re:About as surprising as a shark eating fish.

[phil reed]

Maybe next time voters will vote Libertarian and endorse a society where people's right to buy (or not to buy) software of their choice is respected.

I have a simple question about your analysis: What happens if there is no effective choice, and that continuing lack of choice is enforced by the company providing the only possiblity?


...phil

Govenment should enforce the law

[Zach Frey]

This is about power and it's obscene. I don't want Washington to decide how a private company might be split up. Is anyone stupid enough to think that this hasn't become a completely political action in the continual pattern of demonizing anyone who's worked hard and earned great wealth.

Boo hoo hoo -- let's all feel sorry for the poor oppressed billionaire, being persecuted by the Big Evil Gub'mint.

Bill's company is not in court for being sucessfull, but for breaking the law. Repeat that over and over until it sinks in -- "it's not about success, it's about crime." (Of course, anti-trust law is funny in that you have to be successful in order to have the means to break these laws -- but if Bill & Co. are so smart, and have so many lawyers on their payroll, you'd think they'd have heard of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act before now ...)

Say what you want about Billy Boy but he has done more for America (creating jobs, preeminence of the US in office automation and OS software market etc.) than any of those idiots in Washington put together.

I do not subscribe to the theory that "what's good for Bill Gates is good for America."

All of these points (net job creation, American business dominance) are ... arguable. There's certainly some folks at Netscape who would claim that Bill didn't help build jobs at their company ...

Regardless, we must come back to the basic point: Microsoft broke the law. The DOJ action is not an example of government out of control -- it is an example of the goverment doing its job to enforce the (democratically enacted) law.

Sheesh. Might as well feel sorry for those sucessful businessmen, the cocaine smugglers, when they tangle with government law enforcement. I suppose they ought to try using the defense that they are simply hard-working capitalist entrepeneurs, and that the goverment ought to leave private companies alone and not tell them how to run their business ...

The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all.
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"

Charming Naivete'

[Nehemiah S.]

Don't assume libertarians are naive because we think hammers are better than rifles for pounding nails. Some problems may require drastic solutions, but this isn't one of them. I find it ironic that on a site dominated by Linux enthusiasts, people constantly post in favor of industry regulation; justifying it by claiming Microsoft as an example of a market failure! Talk about pulling wool over your own eyes to make your hands invisible...

To be honest, I don't care what Microsoft wants. I expect that they want to make money; so do I. So do you. If they pursue this interest in a way that harms us, such as by destroying companies we admire, they anger and alienate us and shatter what fragile loyalty remains. They can only do this so long before the reaction reaches critical mass.

The best way to handle Microsoft is to write better code. The rest will fall into place. The worst thing that could happen right now would be for the DOJ to go AT&T on M$; it could paralyze the most vital industry we have left in this country.

To get more on-topic: Vote against Al Gore. Vote against George Bush. Vote for the parties who care more about seeing their ideals in action than about getting into office. Keep America free.

Scudder

Yes, there is.

[FallLine]

Gore made that statement to step on as few toes as possible. He didn't say that Microsoft deserves to be split, or anything to that effect. Gore made a general statement about anti-trust law, which will allow him to backout when it is politically expedient. (e.g.: MS did not use its dominance, therefore I now support MS...) While I don't think Gore is as ethically challenged as Clinton, I suspect he'll do the most expedient thing. When and if public opinion shifts, he'll follow it in proportion with the amount of harm that MS can do him (e.g.: by supporting him or his competition). You just watch...

Re:Presidential pardon?

[twit]

The presidential pardon only applies to criminal, not civil, judgements. Nor could (Clinton, Gore/Bush) exempt MS from antitrust law - it isn't the perogative of the executive to make law.

A new attorney-general, probably under a Bush administration, could stop the prosecution, or at least starve it of resources (letting MS get a much better deal on appeal) but that's as far as it would go - and the states are unlikely to fold as easily.

--