[90922] in Cypherpunks
Re: Microsoft's compelled speech, compelled marketing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Declan McCullagh)
Tue Nov 25 23:21:45 1997
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 19:40:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: Glenn Hauman <hauman@bb.com>
cc: fight-censhorship <fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu>, cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <v03007801b0a13368fd09@[166.84.212.167]>
Reply-To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
My point is the same as Ed Black's, and (I believe) David Burnham's:
Antitrust investigations as important as this one cannot be divorced from
politics. I suppose a corollary to that is that MSFT's competitors should
be wary of calling for the Feds to step in; that can backfire when MSFT
increases its lobbying efforts and turns the tables.
-Declan
On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Glenn Hauman wrote:
> At 12:40 PM -0500 11/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> >Former NY Times and Newseek reporter David Burnham writes in his book about
> >the Justice Department: "The record is clear. Political campaign
> >contributions, personal bribes and other direct and indirect favors have
> >frequently influenced important Justice Department disions about the
> >enforcement of law... Virtually every administration has demanded that the
> >Justice Department bend the law..."
>
> Hold it-- are you suggesting that the DOJ is being restrained in going
> after Microsoft? By who?
