[TriLUG] if you're upset about the feeble microsoft settlement ...

[Marc Johnson]

>From: rpjday <rpjday at mindspring.com>
>
>On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, Marc Johnson wrote:
>
> > Given the state's finances, I'm afraid this may be a non-starter. Much 
>as
> > I'd like to see us on the side of the good guys, I don't see the 
>motivation
> > for our attorney general to jump on this issue. In fact, I can just see 
>the
> > campaign ads for his opponents next term, "and with the state's finances 
>in
> > 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