Sherlock Holmes’ next case: The money-chest that robbed the barons. The biggest question: Who was he woikin’ foah?
ARI’s AS essay contest had a question about Robin Hood and one of the characters’ speeches about him. (Anyone remember who that character was?)
Ash, you can take out the phrase long-range from your post. Attila doesn’t deal with cause-and-effect, whether long-range or short.
Yeah, Ash. I thought that it was rhetorical too. That is why I didn’t answer it.
It was indeed rhetorical. To take it even further, what has the EU done against terrorism? Am I to believe that the EU regards MS as a greater threat than Al Queda? (as evidenced by the degree of their efforts against each party)
It was meant to provide some evidence as to the motives of such a decision.
It was indeed rhetorical - because it posited the illogical. Yet the illogical is the case.
It was Ragnar who gave the speech about Robin Hood – just in case nobody remembered. :~)
Thanks. I was too lazy to go find my copy of Atlas Shrugged. It’s much easier to type.
Yeah, this one was easy for me because I always loved it that Ragnar, the pirate, wanted to wipe out the myth of Robin Hood. Heh.
I’ve been reading AS for over 30 years, and her genius never ceases to amaze me. Time and experience has only added to my understanding because of the tools she gave me. You kids have a lifetime of learning to look forward to. Take it from an old broad, it is a wonderful trip!
Microsoft’s approach is disgusting. It’s called the sanction of the victim.
Microsoft has a contractual obligation to keep looters from its property. Sanctioning their looting is a violation of it.
By sanctioning the looters, by naming them moral, Microsoft abdicates all the good that it stands for.
I’m interested in a clarification on this (either from y_feldblum or anyone else, though of course anyone else would not be “clarifying” but rather adding his own thoughts). I begin with an example. Suppose you were being robbed at gunpoint and had no means to defend yourself. Suppose further that the thief demanded not only your money, but also that you call him a good person. Some rapists and serial killers do this sort of thing, as they are excited by victims acknowledging their “power.”
Why is it necessarily wrong for Microsoft, or any company, to do a similar thing? The DOJ, EU, and whoever else are in a position where they can create havoc for Microsoft. If Microsoft called certain government agencies what they are, that would expose it to an enormous risk. Imagine what hell an IRS agent could cause for you if during your audit you told the agent what he was doing!
I’m not saying that Microsoft was giving moral sanction as a tactical matter. Perhaps Gates really does think antitrust laws are legit. Or perhaps he thinks he benefits from them, as, for example, establishments serving liquor might oppose the granting of new liquor licenses to keep competition away. I don’t know his true motives. What I wish to know is why kissing government rear end in this context is necessarily wrong. Why would it not be okay to appease as a tactical decision? This is different from appeasement as a foreign policy decision, because you can just blow your enemy up. Gates can’t blow the government up. He can either do business on its terms or not do business.
Suppose you were being robbed at gunpoint and had no means to defend yourself. Suppose further that the thief demanded not only your money, but also that you call him a good person.
Well, okay, but what about a different example. Suppose that (by agreement) you’re carrying the backpack with everybody’s money. A thief say to you “Give me the backpack”, and you hand it over. You can rationalize such behavior saying that the moral responsibility lies with the thief, what can I do, etc. but I would say that the guy with the backpack didn’t do enough to protect the backpack; and furthermore, he has taken on the responsibility of protecting the backpack, at least to some extent. This doesn’t mean that you should fight to the death to protect the backpack, but you should not cave in immediately.
If fighting back would indeed be irrational, then there’s no point wasting resources when it’s guaranteed that you’ll lose. The question is whether resisting will get you killed. I won’t pretend to have a serious clue about the legal subtleties of such antitrust cases, but since the outlawed act is neither wrong nor well-defined, as a part-owner of MS I am slightly outraged that they frittered away my money by caving. OTOH if it really is the case that there is no rational basis for believing that you might prevail in court, and if the economic cost of a symbolic act would be too high, then basic fiduciary obligation would say that MS has a duty to cut its losses, in lieu of a clear mandate from the shareholders to fight. I don’t personally know how much money I’d be willing to give up for the sake of a symbolic gesture. Here are some numbers: given a choice of caving with my personal cost being $5,000, or fighting on principle with a high probability of losing with my personal cost being $8,000, I would support the fight. When the cost gets to $10,000 I would say “Cave”. If there were closer to a 50% chance of winning, I could easily take the risk of $10,000 but not $20,000. These figures are subject to change without notice.
Well, okay, but what about a different example.
Fine, have it your way. 
If fighting back would indeed be irrational, then there’s no point wasting resources when it’s guaranteed that you’ll lose. . . . f it really is the case that there is no rational basis for believing that you might prevail in court, and if the economic cost of a symbolic act would be too high, then basic fiduciary obligation would say that MS has a duty to cut its losses, in lieu of a clear mandate from the shareholders to fight.
Yes, I agree that it’s ultimately the shareholders’ call. Your backpack bit showed that nicely. Anyway, a big problem for these companies is that the government is in a better position to fight. I’m going to look at this through the lens of basic “litigation theory” using expected value and such.
When a party is deciding whether to take a settlement offer, it must consider the offer up against its EV of going to trial. Ex: Defendant offers $100. Plaintiff thinks he has 50% chance of winning $250 at trial, 50% chance of getting nothing. Since his EV of going to trial is $125, then assuming plaintiff is risk neutral he goes to trial.
But that’s not the end of the equation. Each party has to figure out its costs. (And a bajillion other things, like future value of the offer, present value of expected outcome at trial, pre and postjudgment interest, and so on. But I’m only addressing costs here.) This is the rub for antitrust defendants where the government is the plaintiff. The government is going to have less concern for costs than Microsoft will. I’ve heard from people in the biz (such as counsel for the NCAA in the NCAA/NIT litigation) that defending antitrust suits is not cheap. Having read the NCAA’s contentions of law and fact in that case, amounting to some 85 pages, I believe it.
Though I have no actual experience in this area, nor is my analysis very thorough, I would guess that in an area of law like antitrust which is somewhat case-by-case, there are many situations where it makes sense, at least monetarily, to cave.
It’s disgusting things like this that make me wish Microsoft would close up shop: stop selling in Europe altogether. If they (the europeans) don’t like the product the way it is, they don’t have to buy it. Let them use Linux along with India.
If Microsoft were to withdraw from Europe (or any other country) then I assume that country would simply stop protecting its copyrights and patents, giving the residents legal permission to download free MS products. The only loser would be MS.
Just struck me that there is a parallel between the way MSFT fights legal/political battles and the way the U.S. government fights the war in Iraq: they both concede some of their enemy’s claims to some degree. Not “concede” in the sense of a negotiation, but in the sense that they actually accept some of the underlying theory that their enemy accepts more fully. They accept a contradiction. This leaves them both partially self-paralysed.
A major difference, however, is that the United States can blow its enemies up. Microsoft can not. That means that there are probably more situations where it makes sense for Microsoft to cave.
If I were Gates, I might well cave too.
However, instead of sending those millions to malaria-eradication, I’d write a check to ARI 
. I would also be financing think-tanks that focused on the issue of getting rid of anti-trust laws.
Yeah, what the hell is with that? I don’t really care about people with diseases halfway around the world when there are things that could be fixed here in the U.S. that would be of much greater benefit to me, such as your suggested repeal of antitrust laws.