[TriLUG] if you're upset about the feeble microsoft settlement ...
Fri, 09 Nov 2001 20:30:49 +0000
>From: rpjday <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Marc Johnson wrote:
> > Given the state's finances, I'm afraid this may be a non-starter. Much
> > I'd like to see us on the side of the good guys, I don't see the
> > for our attorney general to jump on this issue. In fact, I can just see
> > campaign ads for his opponents next term, "and with the state's finances
> > their worst condition in decades, what did he do? He decided to squander
> > millions of OUR tax dollars fighting Microsoft, something even the
> > spendthrifts in Washington were unwilling to continue. And for what?"
>if we begin with your presumption of the state's finances being in their
>"worst condition in decades", how is it improper for an attorney general,
>someone who is supposed to represent the people, to continue fighting
>for consumer rights against a monopolist who has already been convicted
>of an abuse of their monopoly power?
I never said it was improper. I said it was difficult to defend doing so. As
for the state's finances, they *are* in the toilet, and if you've lived here
through any major political races, you *know* that's how the opposition
would phrase it. They play hardball here, and they play fast and loose with
the facts. And Cooper knows it too.
>if both individuals and corporations are feeling the financial squeeze
>these days, how does it serve either of them to give free rein to a
>company that has gouged them financially for years?
It doesn't. All I'm saying is, does the attorney general's office have a
budget that can afford to go after them? I doubt it.
>and finally, have you actually read the proposed settlement? i see
>nothing in there that prohibits microsoft from forcing microsoft
>pre-loads on vendor PCs, just as it has for years. go ahead. read
>it carefully. there's no mention about a remedy for the appalling
>"microsoft tax" we're been forced to pay for years.
>i can't think of any more obvious abuse of monopolistic power than
>to be able to *force* consumers to buy a product they don't want.
Well, I admit my case is somewhat different ... but of all the PCs I've
bought, somewhere in the area of 2-3 dozen, I've had *2* that came with
Windows installed, and I needed Windows installed on those two (the people
using them insisted on it, what could I do?).
If all I could ever do was buy, say, a Dell computer, and I had to then
remove Windows from it so I could get it do useful work, that'd be one
thing. But nobody HAS to buy a name brand computer. Frankly, the two times
I've bought a name brand computer, they turned out to be great space heaters
and lousy computers, and that's without taking into account the cruddy OS
they were running.
>it's not roy cooper's job to worry about the budget. it's not his
>job to look good and worry about the next election. it *is* his job
>to protect consumers. and he just failed at it.
Sorry, but it *is* his job to effectively manage his department's budget,
and whether it's his job to look good and worry about the next election or
not, I doubt he went into his line of work in order to find a suitably high
state position from which to commit political suicide.
As bad guys. Microsoft just doesn't register on the average citizen's radar.
Hell, I know an astonishing number of technically minded people who don't
understand what Microsoft's done that's so egregious. Sad but true.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp