Mercury News: Half the states agree to revised settlement with Microsoft. “Every judge who has heard the case agrees that Microsoft engaged in illegal business practices,” California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said. “While the settlement proposals are a step forward, they fail to provide adequate remedies for Microsoft’s illegal use of its monopoly power to crush innovative technology.”
So it’s down to a few states that have enough money to fight and refused to be bullied. They are American consumers’ last hope for an outcome that doesn’t leave Microsoft on a clear path toward controlling the choke points of tomorrow’s commerce and communications.
No one should be surprised that half of the state attorneys general have given up. A few undoubtedly believe the Justice Department’s sellout achieved something. Others were just been along for the ride and are feeling Microsoft’s — and the federal government’s — enormous lobbying pressure. Watch the campaign contributions flow to see what may have happened with at least some of the politicians who were handling this lawsuit.
If U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who’s now hearing the case, has any courage, the Tunney Act hearing should be extremely revealing. There are so many questions raised by the malodorous deal cut by the Justice Department that it’s hard to know where to begin.
The best place to start is with the odious settlement itself. The document reads as though it had been written by Microsoft lawyers. Perhaps it was.
Here are three quick questions. The answers tell you what a fraud this settlement is.
Why did the monopolist get to keep the money it made from violating the law? Do we give bank robbers the same courtesy? Why does this settlement permit Microsoft to refuse to supply information about its programming interfaces to open-source and free software writers? Microsoft, in its sole authority, gets to decide what goes into Windows. Since that eviscerates every other provision in the agreement, why bother with this charade at all? It would also be useful to put a whole bunch of people under oath for some questions about the politics of this case. For instance:
Why did none of the non-political professional staff that worked on this case support the settlement? Have they been ordered to keep their mouths shut? If so, why? What was the substance of the summer conversation between Vice President Dick Cheney and Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer? Attorney General John Ashcroft’s deputy chief of staff — a Microsoft shareholder and former official of the Republican Party, which got massive Microsoft campaign “contributions” — reportedly told Microsoft opponents to back off even after he’d supposedly recused himself from the case. He’s denied the report, but let him do so under penalty of perjury. And this:
What side deals have Microsoft and the Justice Department struck on matters such as encryption and surveillance? The last of these questions may have the longest-term significance, apart from Microsoft’s growing ability to rule whatever part of commerce it chooses. Is it possible that Microsoft and the government have made some deals that will be couched under “anti-terrorism” rhetoric when they emerge into the public light?
I hope not. I would prefer to think that Microsoft was saved by an administration that opposes antitrust enforcement on ideological grounds, as this one surely does.
California deserves special credit for its stance. Bill Lockyer, the state attorney general, has emerged as the most important public official in America when it comes to holding back the Microsoft tide.
Microsoft now loathes him more than any other public official, and Microsoft has bottomless pockets and utter ruthlessness. Contact Lockyer’s office and express your support. He needs to hear from people who understand what’s at stake.
Note: An earlier version of today’s journal incorrectly referred to a meeting between Ballmer and another administration official.