Does the DoJ Use Microsoft as a Shill Against Linux?

Thu Jan 12 16:24:46 UTC 2006

Is something is rotten in whoville...
RickT
http://www.TorontoNUI.ca

Does the DoJ Use Microsoft as a Shill Against Linux?
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/51589/

Have fears of a resurgence of communism led the DoJ to suspect GNU/Linux
communities of having anti-capitalistic agendas? If so, have they
allowed Microsoft to engage in anti-trust to stop Free Software?

Have you ever chronicled the US Government's efforts to litigate
Microsoft? When you step back and take a look, it seems as though the
Department of Justice shopped around for a friendly judge and finally
got one. You might even consider that we had two presidents with
conflicts of interest with Microsoft and their own cabinets.

Why is this important? Because Microsoft has attacked and continues to
attack GNU/Linux, the Free Software Foundation and a host of projects
related to open source software. With Microsoft's considerable
resources, they have mounted an ambitious campaign unlike any they have
undertaken in the past. They intend to wipe us from the map. 

Here's the progression:

      * DoJ performs massive investigation and enters into a decree->
      * Judge Sporkin refuses to approve->
      * DoJ/Microsoft joint appeal->
      * Judge Jackson hears case and rules to break up Microsoft->
      * Microsoft appeals->
      * Bush DoJ and Microsoft reach settlement->
      * Collen Kollar-Kotelly approves->
      * Microsoft goes back to business and attacks GNU/Linux.

How did this happen? Like I wrote above, Microsoft and their partner,
the Department of Justice shopped for a friendly judge until they found
one. It starts with a DoJ investigation headed up by Anne Bingaman. Most
people believe in the spring of 1994 that she would file a major suite
against Microsoft. But, after Bill Gates visit to the White House all
that changed. 

Failed Decree
The DoJ reached a settlement with Microsoft and took it to the first
Judge Stanley Sporkin. In a memorandum opinion on Valentine's Day 1995,
he launched into Microsoft wondering why the DoJ had made nothing of
Microsoft's anti-trust case. Ultimately, Sporkin refused to approve the
agreement and Microsoft and the DoJ appealed the decision. That's
correct Microsoft and Justice, titular adversaries, filed a joint
appeal.

The following June, a federal appeals court overturned Judge Sporkin and
assigned the case to a different judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson.

Bill Gates Visits China
Bill Gates soon thereafter visited China where, after meetings with
Jiang Zemin, Windows was declared the official operating system of the
People's Republic of China. At just about the time of Gates's visit, the
government of China began putting money into the Democratic Party's
coffers. Conspiracy theorists find the chain of incidents strange. They
consider it an unusual coincidence.

Anti-Trust Trial
We all know what happened next. The DoJ began a trial with Judge Jackson
presiding. They called the filing, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. With an embattled President going
through impeachment, Microsoft started making new friends.

Enter the Republicans
>From 1998-99, Jack Abramoff received $560,000 to lobby on behalf of
Microsoft. Abramoff's associate, Ralph Reed received a $240,000 annual
retainer while serving as a senior consultant to the Bush Campaign 2000.
Reed's company's internal documents showed that his mission involved
identifying and recruiting prominent Bush supporters to personally write
and lobby Bush to back Microsoft.

Reed's contract with Microsoft came to the public's attention and proved
an embarrassment to the Bush campaign in the summer of 2000. While under
prosecution for anti-trust, Microsoft had hired a number of Bush aides
as consultants and lobbyists. But nothing came of it. 

Soon after Bush's inauguration, an appeals court overturned Judge
Jackson's break-up order and the new DoJ got a new judge, Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly. She approved what amounted to slap on the hand.

Ralph Nader the prophet
Lots of people thought Microsoft got off too easy and "the fix was in".

Ralph Nader wrote a letter to the court that you may consider prophetic.
Let's take a look some of his points. He wrote (excerpts):

              * We note at the outset that the decision to push for a
                rapid negotiation appears to have placed the Department
                of Justice at a disadvantage.

              * We are disappointed of course to see a move away from a
                structural remedy (the break-up). 

              * A need to have broader disclosure of file formats for
                popular office productivity and multimedia applications
                (exists).

              * Moreover, the agreement appears to give Microsoft too
                many opportunities to undermine the free software
                movement.

Microsoft Attacks Free Software
Nader may not have won the race to become President of the US, but he
saw the future. Microsoft kept its file formats a secret, went after
Peter Quinn and then opened the wrapper of its MSXML format. Of course,
it's not really open since the specification requires anyone who uses it
to include old undocumented proprietary formats such a WordML and RTF.

Microsoft has plenty of opportunities to undermine the free software
movement. Microsoft has established a slush fund of $180 million to stop
Linux from gaining government adoption anywhere on the globe. They have
also put forth an unprecedented lobbying effort, have brought legal
action against Brazil's head of IT, funded bogus benchmarks and TCO
studies while restricting others from doing the same.

They have also set up shop on Linux news sites and spent untold amounts
of money on their "Get the Facts" campaign. Take a look at Figure 1 and
2 and ask yourself if Microsoft's advertising seems appropriate for a
convicted monopolist.

Figure 1 shows how Microsoft can flex enough financial muscle to invade
a respected Linux news site. In this case, Microsoft's anti-Linux
advertising runs in the banner rotation in an article about Debian Linux
and ISPConfig.

Figure 2 shows Microsoft planting itself on LinuxToday with an
anti-Linux resource center.

Where's the Anti-Trust Cops When You Need Them
Governments around the world have found Microsoft guilty of Anti-Trust
as if that was a stretch. What does the Bush Administration do? Our
Justice Department tells South Korea's Fair Trade Commission that they
went too far in an antitrust judgment against Microsoft. 

Last month, I spoke to Bob Price, former CEO of Control Data Corporation
and author of The Eye for Innovation. We discussed a private anti-trust
suit Control Data initiated against IBM back in 1968, when IBM was the
nastiest monopoly in the world. Bob recalled the problems he had with
the Department of Justice bringing any action against IBM.

As we spoke, I asked a series of questions about how dirty IBM behaved
at the time of the CDC suit. My questions went something like this: Did
IBM ever sue a public official in another country for wanting to use a
different platform? Did IBM ever call a competitor a cancer? How far did
they go in influencing members of Congress, the Judiciary, state
representatives? 

When I finished, Bob seemed astonished. He didn't know Microsoft was
that insidious. As our discussion ended, I realized that the difference
between CDC then and Linux now had to do with money. CDC could afford a
legal action where it received a substantial settlement. The Linux
people don't have those kinds of resources.

What we do need is a government that will take care of the people in
this country and enforce the laws. What laws? Primarily the Sherman and
Clayton anti-trust laws against Microsoft.

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml