“Microsoft’s gamble to break the law to fend off competition paid huge dividends. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly’s decision Friday permits Microsoft to repeat illegal acts and lets it retain all of the fruits of its illegal behavior. The way is now paved for a Microsoft-owned Internet.” Read the rest at USAToday.
Justice Fails in Microsoft Case
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
51 Comments
2002-11-06 3:53 am
2002-11-06 3:59 am
2002-11-06 4:24 am
2002-11-06 5:01 am
Anonymous
Anonymous: Only thing that I feel that OEM actions are illegal, so the government should look into this one instead what M$ is doing with their own products.
I don’t think it is illegal, however one of the major bad points of the Sherman act is that interpretations of its clauses varies for person to person.
ryan: the real issue is the boot loader. OEMs need to have the freedom to install whatever OS they and the consumer want without fearing retaliation from MS.
Now, if Coke and Pepsi, as said by PainkilleR, have the right to have exclusive contracts with restraunts, why can’t Microsoft?
Yes, I think OEMs should have the freedom to install whatever OS they want. However, they should install them on seperate machines. Why? All the hardware makers making components for that machine have exclusive contracts for that machine (for example, you won’t find a Intel and a AMD processor on the same machine, would ya?), shouldn’t the same be for Windows?
Besides, this won’t exactly cause widespread adoption of altenative operating systems, contrary to popular belief.
1) OEMs would only use this on selected machines where the OS is compatible, hardware-wise.
2) Because of the lack of support, which would be too costly for OEMs at the moment, very little people would use altenative operating systems even if it is loaded on their machines.
3) People in the end would use Windows because most of their apps are there and they are used to it. There isn’t any big reason why they should waste time moving to the other operating systems loaded on the machine.
4) Big OEMs constitute a small number of machines sold. They normally sell to corporations, which would even wipe out their current copy of Windows and install their own. Whitebox makers, they are the important people. Yet it is unlikely they should install other OS other than Windows because it cost them too much, and their only competitive skill is on price.
ryan: Could you possibly imagine if coca cola told super markets they couldn’t carry pepsi or they’d face retaliation?
Supermarkets would probably never heed their demands, because both are equally as popular. But as mentioned before, both brands have exclusive deals with a lot of diners.
ryan: Could you imagine Texas intruments (world leader in DSPs) telling nokia that nokia can’t use an analog chip from say Anadigics without facing retaliation.
Would be illogical, but I would find it logical if TI retaliates if Nokia uses both Anadigic’ and TI’s DSP.
ryan: Does TRW get to retaliate against ford, GM, BMW, or mercedes because they use parts from other sub system suppliers.
Say TRW makes the tires. Now just say BMW uses two TRW tires, and another two from a different brand. I’m quite sure they would retaliate. Notice all except one of your analogies are based on different parts of a overall product. However in this case it is the same part of the overall product.
ryan: I’ll bet that MS will continue to threaten OEMs and i still won’t be able to buy a major OEM PC that is preconfigured with linux or anything other than billy gate windows.
If you don’t see Linux Dells, don’t quickly blame it on Microsoft. These companies have other costs besides just buying the software; making sure the software is compatible with the machine and training support staff is extremely vital.
And expensive.
HagerR15: Granted there are exceptions, like Dell supplying PC-DOS with a blank PC, but for the most part, this is the way it has been and Microsoft has strongarmed that position.
Wrong. What Microsoft doesn’t allow is all the OS on earth on one machine. They don’t care about you having a nice Penguin machine model. Dell, for example, have at least half of their business machines, and their highend workstations with a Linux-only option. They used to have that with all their machines, but Linux only sells on these machines.
HagerR15: The only way to stop the Microsoft monopoly without imposing sanctions on Microsoft, is to not allow preinstallation of ANY Operating System at the Factory Level.
Trust me, not even one OEM would even agree to this. So, if the preinstallation of the OS is not done at factory level, then where? At the consumer’s home/office?
HagerR15: Dell should make PC’s, period.
An OS is a important component of a PC, period.
HagerR15: Let the retail store (or Dell Customer Section, as a seperate entity) offer the Operating system.
This would cause high cost in in preinstalling because it isn’t done in the factory. Linux and other operating systems can be installed in the factory. It is almost instantanous. They just use the same hard disk image from all the same models and ship it.
HagerR15: the customer decide at the purchase level, not have it chosen for him in a contract between corporations.
The consumer still have that choice. I lost count on how many Linux OEMs (all of them whitebox). If the consumer wants that, they would get it from those OEMs.
However even by some chance your suggestion gets into the final settlement, it wouldn’t change things. Most people would still choose Windows unless they have a reason not to.
Hank Rearden: Stuff like this would not happen under a system of true laisez faire capitalism.
True, they won’t be no such law to sue Microsoft with.
ryan: So are you saying that corporations are actually the benefactors of government’s so-called meddling?
Well, in a true laisez-faire capitalist country, Microsoft wouldn’t have a chance to be a monopoly because it is ground into the people on the need to compete and to strengthen your competitive egde as much as possible.
yc: most importantly with ?? Inc. for destroying it’s ??OS business. 
Yes, if there was a ?? Inc. Come on, it is quite clear Be killed themselves. If Microsoft was to blame, than the same for Apple, as they too prevented Be’s advances previously.
sam: Except that Microsoft, until last year, didn’t have much experience on government lobbying.
For laws, Microsoft does have an experience in government lobbying. The most recent is the DMCA. For policies, again Microsoft has a huge history behind it.
ryan: But he is still acting as an agent that suffocates competition in the PC world, and the good deeds don’t make that okay.
no, ryan. What Bill Gates have been doing is what they have been doing since 1976. Their policies. If Scott McNeily or Larry Elison have the same amount of power as Bill Gates do right now, things would be way way way way way way way way way way more worse.
(Yeah, I lied about that being the only post)
2002-11-06 5:09 am
2002-11-06 6:09 am
2002-11-06 6:23 am
2002-11-06 6:33 am
2002-11-06 12:00 pm
2002-11-06 1:45 pm
2002-11-06 4:11 pm
2002-11-06 5:08 pm
2002-11-06 6:17 pm
2002-11-06 7:29 pm
2002-11-07 2:56 pm
2002-11-07 3:22 pm
There is en seperate law for rich people. That is an unwritten law.
how can this be possible in america??? but then agin…where else would it be possible???.humm.. š anyway…its not the end….its just ANOTHER lost battle….because this rulling opens is a very dangerous precedent and the media, hopefully, will be aware of that
I agree that justice failed in this case, but the nature of the United States legal system pretty much guaranteed such failure.
If the “remedies” proposed by the dissenting states had actually been ordered by the court, justice would have just as surely failed.
For instance, the notion of open-sourcing Internet Explorer. What does that have to do with anything? The problem wasn’t that IE was closed source or that it was so much better than anything else that others couldn’t compete (in which case opening the source code would have been doubly wrong). The problem was the placement of IE. Opening the source code would do nothing to remedy that. Most people are going to use whatever is put in front of them. If everyone in the world had a copy of the IE source code and there was 200 IE spinoffs that doesn’t mean for a second any one of them would ever be the default Windows browser.
It’s how MS intends to use the browser (as some say, to own the Internet by being the window [pun’s suck, huh] through which online content is viewed) that is the problem. In this instance it might make sense to have the source for IE available, I suppose, but the simple fact remains that then the “alternative” browsers would just be IE clones and the general direction MS is taking wouldn’t have to change a bit. I certainly don’t know how competition could be restored to the browser market, but none of the proposed remedies seemed to fit the bill as best I could tell.
And what about the proposal to auction off the Office source code? MS has spent thousands and thousands of man-hours and billions in R&D to make Office what it is. So now it should have to auction off its source code so that Red Hat (or whoever), who’s never spent any time or money developing Office gets it all basically for free just because Microsoft is “bad”. I don’t understand how anyone could think that’s fair.
I could understand forcing a Linux port of Office. This would break the way Office is tied to Windows on the x86 platform, which makes up the vast majority of the consumer and business desktop market. Think about it: if Apple released Mac OS for x86 there wouldn’t be a port of Office for Mac x86 ever. There’s no way MS would break the ties between Office and Windows on x86. Some might argue such a move would be suicide. With that in mind, it’s hard to see a forced port of Office to Linux as fair, either. That relationship gives MS a competitive edge, maybe even an unfair one. Maybe a forced port would be fair, maybe it wouldn’t. I don’t know and I haven’t heard anyone who DOES know discussing it rationally. Maybe in a few weeks, after all the knee-jerk reactions have passed, some decent, factual commentary will become available.
I think what I’m trying to say is that while I disagree with the outcome of the case, I think the alternatives offered by the states were not much better (and sometimes worse). It’s all so complicated. Maybe there are no right ansers, just least-worst.
Nobody can force M$ what to do with their own products. M$ have their own rights. The government don’t repsect M$’s rights. Only thing that I feel that OEM actions are illegal, so the government should look into this one instead what M$ is doing with their own products. If M$ don’t want other product to be bother on Windows, then let it be.
should MSFT really be punished for putting a browser in their OS? seriously, just because people dislike them doesn’t make them criminals.
I found this case disturbing. I never supported the particular prescribed punishment much though i feel strongly that MS is damaging competition and that competition needs to be preserved. However, what bothers me about this case is potential correlation between money and the outcome of the legal system. Was the legal system just purchased? I suspect it was, and that is very dangerous. basically, the US legal system may have just said its outcome is subject to your income. That not justice.
I believe that JLG had the best idea. the real issue is the boot loader. OEMs need to have the freedom to install whatever OS they and the consumer want without fearing retaliation from MS. In fact it is just absurd that it does not work this way. Could you possibly imagine if coca cola told super markets they couldn’t carry pepsi or they’d face retaliation? Could you imagine Texas intruments (world leader in DSPs) telling nokia that nokia can’t use an analog chip from say Anadigics without facing retaliation. Or how about this. Does TRW get to retaliate against ford, GM, BMW, or mercedes because they use parts from other sub system suppliers. That MS has so much control, via increasing the pricing of windblows, over what an OEM chooses to put in their computer is absurd.
I really doubt that this agreement will put a stop to that. I suspect that we will see no enforcement of this seattlement what so ever. I’ll bet that MS will continue to threaten OEMs and i still won’t be able to buy a major OEM PC that is preconfigured with linux or anything other than billy gate windows.
I agree with your statements partly, but the problem isn’t entirely the OEMs or Microsoft for that matter. The problem lies in that Microsoft Windows is preloaded AT THE FACTORY and has agreements with the OEM’s (until this ruling, anyway) that their OS is the only one allowed. Granted there are exceptions, like Dell supplying PC-DOS with a blank PC, but for the most part, this is the way it has been and Microsoft has strongarmed that position.
The only way to stop the Microsoft monopoly without imposing sanctions on Microsoft, is to not allow preinstallation of ANY Operating System at the Factory Level. Dell should make PC’s, period. Let the retail store (or Dell Customer Section, as a seperate entity) offer the Operating system. Such as: 1) MS Windows with a choice of Office Suites, Media Players, and Anti-Virus software sold in packages A,B,C or D. 2) Linux of flavors RedHat, Lycoris, Debian etc. (Since they include almost everything anyway, no other selection is really necessary). 3) OS/2, BeOS or any other OS that appears.
Seperate the hardware from the software, and let the customer choose a computer package like you would choose a dinner at a restaurant. If that Factory doesn’t serve what you like, eat somewhere else.
This is the easiest way to keep monopolies from happenning. Let the customer decide at the purchase level, not have it chosen for him in a contract between corporations. Granted 90% will still choose Windows, but you would see an end to strongarm tactics, and hopefully end monopoly practices.
Stuff like this would not happen under a system of true laisez faire capitalism. Due to American complacency the country is ruled by the policy of “Government by Law” and not “Government by People”. Only in a [corporate] welfare state can court procedings even be brought up and for that mater, companies like Microsoft exist.
Thanks alot, you spineless politicians.
I need to find a place for utopian existance….
The government can, should and does force companies to do things with their products.
There are so many examples but things like testing drugs come to mind immediately.
The government also forces you to do things with your money. Like pay taxes. There are many things individuals, corporations don’t sign up for but are ‘forced’ to do. I am thankful for that, because it would be anarchy if it wasn’t that way.
And no, I favor small government not a big one.
<<<Only in a [corporate] welfare state can court procedings even be brought up and for that mater, companies like Microsoft exist>>>>>
That is a fascinating way of looking at things. So are you saying that corporations are actually the benefactors of government’s so-called meddling? That its not true laisez faire capitalism at all but rather an environment where government intervenes in the name of corporate interests?
IE is part of windows, but that doesn’t mean people have to use it. I went out & got Netscape I never used IE, accept when NS didn’t work right or load a page. As far a MS Windows yes some people hate it, but people know about windows it is all over in the medea they have advertise it when a new version comes out, it is on the net, etc. Linux though is not advertised, nowhere have I ever seen it advertised, they only talk about it on TechTV’s The Screen Savers. Linux is geting more user-friendly, but if people don’t know about it it will not be used as much as it could be.
1. Force a company to give it’s IP for free.
2. Force a company to stop developing it’s products.
3. Dictate how products should be designed.
The state lawyers asked for the wrong things. Things that the judge could not possibly define or give to them. Things that would be harmful to the industry as a whole.
ciao
yc
For once, YC spoke the truth.
The state lawyers indeed asked for the wrong things.
“That its not true laisez faire capitalism at all but rather an environment where government intervenes in the name of corporate interests?”
..which is a hallmark of Facism . and yes there are nascent elements of this in USA as not enough vigorous steps are
taken to prevent Capitalism from sequeing into something
that is not not Capitalism .
More important than knowing the strengthts of a system is
knowing it’s weaknesses.
Well, it just goes to show how much Money buys you Justice.
I think it’s in our interest as consumers and IT professionals to take the fight back to MS and hit them where it hurts by no longer buying their products.
>>>Stuff like this would not happen under a system of true laisez faire capitalism.
This reminds me of a newspaper article about a bunch of anarchists playing soccer during their breaks (from their protests of the 2002 G8 summit in Calgary). One player touched the soccer ball by his hand. The other team called for a hand ball penalty. That player just said, what penalty — this is anarchy soccer. The “corporate welfare state” that you talked about was referred by the judge that this drawn on battle by the remaining 9 states were solely for the benefit of a selected Microsoft competitors, they are the real corporate welfare recipients.
Usually “government by law” is called “rule of law” and it’s associated with democratic countries. Of course, “government by people” is usually associated with communist countries.
What? American law is purchased by the rich. Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison (he who is spending 90 million dollars right now on his yacht racing hobby), at one time or another, have bigger combined net worth than Bill Gates.
Actually they can and do (Point 3). Car manufacturers are forced to include seatbelts. When an architect designs a building for example he has to by law follow a set of regulations in the interest of the people using the building. Car manufacturers are forced to include seatbelts.
The government cannot by law ARBITRARILY apply restrictions, rules and regulations on a individual company and ignore the rest. They could do it by simply changing the law though. Which I know is not going to happen or should happen.
Unfortunately in the legal system their is no such thing as natural law, all law therefore by definition is arbitrary and is thus coercive by nature.
People always seem to get so hung up on their rights without ever wondering where they come from.
Thanks, Eugenia!
I hope the States don’t appeal. They should have asked for money as well but they did not ask for any at all. Oh well…
Now that Microsoft gets to keep all this money, they can afford to settle other cases such as the case of Sun Microsystems for Java, AOL Time Warner for Netscape and most importantly with ?? Inc. for destroying it’s ??OS business.
ciao
yc
ryan: I really doubt that this agreement will put a stop to that. I suspect that we will see no enforcement of this seattlement what so ever. I’ll bet that MS will continue to threaten OEMs and i still won’t be able to buy a major OEM PC that is preconfigured with linux or anything other than billy gate windows.
No matter what the reason, the fact remains that there are very few people who would want a system with Linux instead of Windows. The market just isn’t there. It doesn’t matter WHY the market isn’t there, because it’s simply not and that’s the reality OEMs have to deal with. Why should Dell, Gateway or anyone else spend a lot of time and money putting together machines that aren’t going to sell?
I love Linux, I really do. But it is not by any stretch of the imagination ready for mass consumption. Microsoft doesn’t have to pressure the OEMs at this point (when it comes to consumer machines like the ones on the shelves at Best Buy) because it wouldn’t be a sound business decision to NOT load Windows. Like I said, I’m not defending or justifying anything: that’s just the way things are.
<<<The “corporate welfare state” that you talked about was referred by the judge that this drawn on battle by the remaining 9 states were solely for the benefit of a selected Microsoft competitors, they are the real corporate welfare recipients.>>>>>
I think we can make that argument both ways, that MS and others are also recipients of corporate welfare.
<<<<No matter what the reason, the fact remains that there are very few people who would want a system with Linux instead of Windows. >>>
i don’t see how you can say that when no single major oem has really offered it, at least not with much backing. Plus, it sounds more like people are interested in dual booting machines, windows and linux or something else.
>>>I think we can make that argument both ways, that MS and others are also recipients of corporate welfare.
Except that Microsoft, until last year, didn’t have much experience on government lobbying.
Except that Bill Gates, along with his pal Warren Buffet, are registered democrats —- and are more interested in actually going to the ballot box to vote from the lowly local school district trustee elections to the city elections to the state elections and to the national elections —- than actually buying politicians off with soft money.
Except that Bill Gates, also along with Buffet, supports the continuation of the estates tax for the super rich.
Intersting comments about Republicans.
Did you know that Gore received plenty of money from the super rich to pay his legal fees after the Florida debacle (I am talking hudred thousand + from individual donations).
Bush on the other hand would not accept any donation over $1,000. Yet Bush raised more than twice as much as Gore.
The old thing that Republicans get there money from the Wealthy past decades ago. The reverse it true today.
“Except that Microsoft, until last year, didn’t have much experience on government lobbying. ”
so then you are agreeing that we can say the same about ms. They are also beneficiaries of soft money, lobbying, and corporate welfare. perhaps they didn’t do it years before but its safe to say that they have been doing it for many years now. I actually thought that MS had been a minor contributor to the democrat party before the antitrust issue came up, which would make the dems look pretty good.
Bill gates is a bit of a monster in the PC world/business world but he is an interesting character. He certainly could have abused his power a lot more than he has, and that says a good amount. Is he a better citizen than ellison or nealy? In a lot of ways…yes. But he is still acting as an agent that suffocates competition in the PC world, and the good deeds don’t make that okay.
Competition is good!!! Moreover, the idea of a free market ecomony was hijacked long ago to mean free market market when we want it to be and not otherwise. Adam smith was never talking about total hands off anyway. Plus, His idea was the free market would ensure competition. MS is killing competition. One of his primary premises was that the market would be served by competition
i don’t get it!
it is not only about what heck of software microsoft is putting on their os or not.
it is about, that if you are a oem and you install another software wich is not from microsoft on a pc you sell to your customers (pre loaded with windows), then you pay much more for the windows license then you would if you would leave windows and another microsoft product on that pc.
i am so happy that i don’t live in a country where such tactis infront of the justice/law is possible.
this is no way a democratic act what microsoft is doing! it is a mafia act!
sorry to name it that way… but i can’t find another word for something like this!
and i never ever saw somewhere else, a case like this! where in the world can you be judged as guilty and still choose what kind of punishment you want? where else?
this is so twisted up, that i can’t belive that something like this is happening!
somehow i am mad that this can happen and somehow i have big respect for microsoft to be able to do that. gee… america must be a dream land for economic criminals.
you can do crazy things wich are not allowed by law and nobody can do anything against it.
you can tweak your bookkeeping and nobady can do anything against it (okay… okay… at the end when you have to close your company because of this, then everyone will scream and tell everyone else, that they knowed this would happen. but bevore… everyone was quiet. gee! give me a break)
happy… happy… world.
That’s because Bush has the money to pay for the legal bills (also donations to legal bill funds ain’t the same as political contributions because different laws applied — that’s comparing apples and oranges) — but the most important part of it is that Bush might have benefitted from selling his oil stocks with insider information.
Why Bush getting more money than Gore? Because after the election, they put more money on the winner. When asked who they voted for in the last election, some portion of the people have systemically changed their “story” that they voted for the winner when in reality they actually voted for the loser. It’s human nature.
I don’t know where you get your info about the Democrats getting more money from the wealthy than the Republicians. Perhaps you can share it with us.
>>>so then you are agreeing that we can say the same about ms. They are also beneficiaries of soft money, lobbying, and corporate welfare. perhaps they didn’t do it years before but its safe to say that they have been doing it for many years now.
No I agree with your views because only the last 2 to 3 years out of the 27 years Microsoft is in business — did they spent the time, energy and money on lobbying. Even in the last couple of years, Microsoft’s competitors have outspent them on lobbying. The SUN’s and Oracles are the beneficiaries of extra government contracts…
Then there are cases where Microsoft, as a company, did benefit ALONG with the rest of the computer industries from concerted government lobbying. But in many of those cases, Microsoft has been the UNWILLING beneficiary. For example, Bill Gates and Microsoft both like to expense stock options, BUT they sided with the rest of the computer industry to support NOT EXPENSING stock options.
Ultimately, it’s the fact that Gates and Microsoft doesn’t believe in government lobbying that tips that scale.
Unfortunately, the government skewed this whole case. Microsoft’s products (in and of themselves) should have never had anything to do with this. It is very unfortunate because this was the first anti-trust suit of the hi-tech era and, if done right, could have set good precedents. But, instead, we have a mish-mash.
The point is not that Bush has the money to pay his legal bills, that is completely irrelevant. The point is he used none of it and relied on normal people, not people like Ms. Streisand.
The fact is that Bush set a limit of $1,000. He got his money from normal people. Gore could not raise the money without the help of the super rich, Bush could.
Bush also raised more money for the elections prior to being the President. He did not get his money because he was President.
I am not the kind of person who documents everything, takes notes, ect, so I am sure I could do a search and find the newspaper article I read that had this fact or go to which ever government site it is that keeps track of this information, but unfortuntaley I don’t care enough about it to keep hard copies.
All I am saying is that there is so much regurgitation of sitcom politics and hollywood fads that every now and then when I hear someone saying these things I feel I should say something.
The days of the 60’s are over and with them the days when the Republican party could have been rightly criticised for this.
Lastly if you could direct me to the site or place where I can reference who gets what campaign finances and from whom I would appreciate it. I am assuming that since you asked me to provide my source you would be able to provide real hard proof that the repulican party is what you imply it is. Please no references to the NewYork Times.
I am not American but the US is very important internationally and I live here for the time being.
I would vote Republican normally generally because:
– they lean on the side of the rights of the community vs the rights of the individual
– they favor small government as opposed to large government
I could go into more details but I fear this message may have gone too far already.
I do believe youre looking for this site :
http://www.opensecrets.org
dont involve me in this discussion im just providing the pointer you asked for.
Cheers
Thanks for the link. Clicked on it had a look at a few links.
Looks like a pretty good source to bookmark. I will definitely keep it in mind.
It is amazing how sub-consciously we assess the worth of a site by how well laid out it is.
I suppose first impressions do matter.
>>>The fact is that Bush set a limit of $1,000. He got his money from normal people. Gore could not raise the money without the help of the super rich, Bush could.
Your comments have one major flaw. There are a lot more rich people who can afford to contribute $999 to Bush. Ordinary Americans don’t contribute $999 to politicians.
You seem to distinguish that rich people are the ones who contribute over $1000 to their politicians and ordinary americans can afford to contribute $999. There is no difference whether you contribute $500 or $1000 at all, because only the rich people can afford to contribute anything more than a couple of hundred bucks to a politician.
The article was about the Microsoft verdict, not religion, not the separation of church and state and certainly not about assignation of “blame” for last year’s terrorists attacks on the United States.
Look, I’ll put in simple words for you: the article was about the government not doing it’s job. Do you think when IBM and MS lobbies it’s for your own good? When did the american people give their OK for this to happen? I call it cheating capitalism. It’s the same case for the separation of church and state. To me, it sounds like the Greek innovation call democracy didn’t very last long? Microsoft isn’t the root of problem, it’s the outcome of A problem.
There are forums for posts like yours. This isn’t one of them.
Original post was entirely ON topic. See above.
>>>Do you think when IBM and MS lobbies it’s for your own good?
So do you think SUN, AOL and Oracle are lobbying for your own good?
Do you really think that Alanis Morissette care about your “fair rights” to listen to mp3’s? Alanis got $24 million worth of stock options for a internet startup called mp3.com — and she thought she could flip the stocks 6 months later for 10x the value.
http://www.salon.com/tech/log/1999/09/29/silicon_cd/
Actually I know that $1,000 is a lot, too me anyway.
But that is a MAXIMUM contribution which he would accept and is a lot less than $100,000 for example. Also if you donate $1,000 it is unlikely that $1,000 is enough to buy you influence. It is really just saying you are behind the principles. $100,000 will get you a favor or two though or is enough to.
We are probably quibbling over silly issues though (you will probably agree).
Can we agree that when voting it is probably better to select your candidate based on what they stand for, and if they will follow through or not. And not based on how much money they raise?
Granted that there is no conflict of interest in who they get the money from and what they supposedly stand for.
Thats a mouth full, I know sorry.
With that I thank you Sam for your thoughts, as I believe we have gone way off topic.
So do you think SUN, AOL and Oracle are lobbying for your own good?
Nope. I said lobbying is wrong. Didn’t you read what I just posted?
Do you really think that Alanis Morissette care about your “fair rights” to listen to mp3’s? Alanis got $24 million worth of stock options for a internet startup called mp3.com — and she thought she could flip the stocks 6 months later for 10x the value.