I didn't say that.
You just wrote:
Do you know when Microsoft first started lobbying? After it began to get sued by everyone and their brother under laws passed by competitors and it realized that it had to play in the same "control the regulators" game to survive. Do you know when it really started manipulating the market in unfair ways? After that happened. While some of its business practices beforehand (bundling stuff with their OS for example) was a but pushy, they could be worked around (and quite often were).
When things got nasty was after they started lobbying the government and getting them to pass regulations which were designed to benefit their OS and software. How many of you are aware of the security requirements in SOX? Do you know that it's basically tailor written to the security model Windows Servers use?
Lie a little less maybe?
I'm confused then. Where on earth in that post you just quoted did I say that they started lobbying before they were sued
? I specifically said they began lobbying *after* they were sued. It's right there in the **** quote Joph.
You're losing sight of my original point here. Remember, we were talking about the contradictory approaches to public/private corruption. One says that we need more regulation to prevent it, the other says we need less. Clearly, in the case of MS "more regulation" (intervention really in this case) didn't help matters. MS is more of a monopoly than it was before the government got involved. Since the government began suing them for anti-trust issues, MS began lobbying heavily. Because MS began lobbying heavily, it positioned itself to inject beneficial language into Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) in 2002. This allowed them to effectively leverage themselves in ways which hurt consumers unlike previous actions which merely hurt competitors. I know first hand how many times we've received directives which required us to implement MS solutions justified because of the need to meet SOX requirements. It's more than a handful, and I'd estimate we purchase about 4-5 times more Windows licenses as a direct consequence.
Government being *more* involved in business makes the public/private corruption worse. Absent that initial involvement (which was spurred on not by consumer complaints but by lobbying from competitors), MS would never have lobbied politicians (which was the direct assumption I was countering if you recall), and its corrupt influence on SOX regulations would not have occurred. So I find it strange when someone laughs at the idea that if government didn't regulate business, business wouldn't bribe politicians. Of course they wouldn't. They'd have no reason to.
So your argument is that they didn't start lobbying until AFTER the lawsuit that was supposedly the result of them lobbying for regulations that would let them build the monopoly they were sued for?
Sigh. No. They began lobbying after the initial round of lawsuits (specifically the browser issue). This led to them lobbying as part of their defense, which in turn positioned them to lobby for beneficial legislation which they might not ever have done if not for the initial need to lobby in the first place. That later lobbying led to far more monopolistic acts than anything they'd done before.
This is ignoring the fact that neither of those articles addresses your supposed connection between this and regulations and the lawsuit itself.
Because you keep looking at it backwards even though I've explained this clearly several times now. The lawsuit *caused* them to start lobbying. Which in turn *caused* them to use that influence for corrupt actions. While we can say that MS engaged in questionable business practices before 1998, they were not engaged in public/private corrupt activities prior to that point. Keep your eye on the ball here Joph. We're talking about that public/private corruption. That's the thing that the OWS folks are supposedly **** off about, remember?
I said that if the government didn't involve itself so directly in regulating and legislating business (and enforcing those things), business would have no reason to lobby and we would not have so much corruption. That suggestion was laughed at, but the best case you guys could come up with (Microsoft) for private market abuse clearly shows the exact same pattern I'm talking about. No matter what you thought of MS's practices prior to 1998, it's clear that their ability to influence legislation to benefit them (and hurt consumers and competitors alike) grew dramatically *after* they began lobbying. Had the government left them alone back then, we'd likely be better off.
Hence, government being the problem. If we're asking the question as to whether we should have less government in business or more within the context of public/private corruption, the MS example should clearly show us that less is better.
Do you even listen to yourself sometimes? On the plus side, it took you exactly one failed attempt at a cite to start throwing out stuff from the "Independence Institute" from Heartland. It ain't Heritage Foundation yet but it'll do for a laugh.
Ah. Another case of you insisting on a cite and then dismissing any cite I provide because it's not liberal enough for you. Forgive me if I still don't put much weight on that Joph.
Let's not forget that you requested a citation of the fact that MS did not begin lobbying heavily until *after* it was embroiled in lawsuits from the government. Is that fact still in doubt? Can you find any source stating that MS was involved in heavy lobbying prior to the 1998 time frame? So what the **** difference does your opinion of my sources make? Facts are facts. Edited, Nov 29th 2011 6:43pm by gbaji