[DMCA-Activists] Re: pho: Who Railroaded Peter Quinn? Following Gates' Attack Money

[Seth Johnson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [fairuse-talk] Re: pho: Who Railroaded Peter Quinn?
Following Gates' Attack Money
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:38:41 -0500
From: Little White Mouse <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden

On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 10:29:26AM -0800, Bob Bellin wrote:
> This is too complicated for me to follow. Can someone summarize it? That will 
> probably have to be done anyway if more than a few will be able to grasp its 
> meaning.

First, here's a 30 second (ok, more like 5 minute) summary of the
ODF situation in Mass and Quinn's resignation.  Skip ahead if you
already know the power of MS.

As we all know, Massachussettes, under Quinn's leadership,
decided that they would require all documents to be saved in the
OpenDocument format, which is an open format.  The main reason, I
gather, is to avoid vendor lock-in and to ensure that citizens of
that state will be able to, in perpetuity, access state
documents.

Microsoft was not happy about this & had tried to push through
their own format (with some "Open"s in the name and some
mostly-worthless agreement about interoperability).  They failed
at their first attempt.

Then, out of the blue, Mass lawmakers try to strip the ITD
(Mass's  Information and Technology Division) of its ability to
make technology decisions and Peter Quinn steps up to bat for his
decisions.  MS also makes a huge number of annoucements regarding
their new "open" XML,  and in general, there is suddenly a lot of
pressure from a lot of  people who don't know the first thing
about the technologies or issues.  One of the big arguments was
that disabled people couldn't  use OpenOffice while they could
use MS tools.  For whatever reason (*cough* MS influence
*cough*), slamming this decisions is very  popular with
politicians.

Shortly afterwards, and with impeccable timing (just before a
weekend so that a questionable source could not be
double-checked), the Boston Globe comes out with a front page
article accusing Quinn of illegal  use of state funds for travel
expenses.  Of course, after the weekend it seeems a heck of a lot
less likely, and by Dec 10th, he's completely exonerated.  This
news, of course, doesn't make the front page.

Quinn finally resigns after his forey into mudslinging politics,
and the Globe's annoucement doesn't even mention their own
involvement in said mudslinging.

Microsoft is still fighting to stop ODF (the OpenDocument Format)
in Mass, although governor Romney announced that they expect "no
changes in those rules" requiring ODF.  We'll see about that.

Anyway, MS moved around a lot of political capital in Mass, and
at least one person's career ended.

----- end summary of Mass -----

So, it's pretty clear MS has a lot of political power.  This
article says it's all about the money.  A real 30 second summary
is:
1.  MS has a lot of lobbyists.
2.  MS has also set up Preston Gates & Ellis as (more or less) 
    a front to funnel more money to politicians.
3.  There's a long list of ppl they've given money to.
4.  We shouldn't be surprised; they're a monopoly.

HTH!

--Peter


>  
> Bob
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Seth Johnson <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden; 
> address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 18:17:00
> Subject: pho: Who Railroaded Peter Quinn? Following Gates' Attack Money
> 
> 
> > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/38971/index.html
> 
> 
> Following Bill Gates' Linux Attack Money if you still wonder
> about who railroaded Peter Quinn
> 
> 
> LXer; By Tom Adelstein
> 
> Posted by tadelste on Dec 29, 2005 2:27 PM
> 
> 
> Recently, we witnessed the power of Microsoft's political machine
> when one of the champions of free and open source software, Peter
> Quinn resigned as CIO of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In my
> opinion, Microsoft just blinked and everything went south. Other
> writers have also commented on the chain of events in
> Massachusetts. For example, Andy Undegrove writes a farewell
> piece in his blog to the maligned public servant
> (http://www.consortiuminfo.org/newsblog/blog.php?ID=1872). Steven
> J. Vaughan-Nichols also writes an article about this issue in
> Microsoft Wins, Open Standards Lose
> (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1906388,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000616).
> Steven writes: "CIO Peter Quinn's story tells us that if you go
> up against Microsoft, you can expect everything and the kitchen
> sink to be thrown at you."
> 
> Well Steven, as much respect and admiration as I have for you,
> Microsoft didn't even breathe hard. They looked in the direction
> of bean town and people started doing their bidding. That's what
> happens when you own a country.
> 
> One of the top stories of the year at LXer warned mightily of
> Microsoft's capabilities. So, I brought it back out and rewrote
> it. It you don't get it this time, you never will.
> 
> Anyone doubting the power of Microsoft, should consider what we
> said at the end of June 2005. We've also added the preceding
> article to this text - and made some changes. But the documents
> we uncovered are still in place. The people within Microsoft's
> grasp politically are still listed. This isn't a story you scan.
> This is one you read.
> 
> The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
> growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than
> their democratic State itself. That in its essence, is Fascism -
> ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any
> controlling private power.
> 
> In a letter to the Department of Justice addressing Microsoft's
> Proposed Final Judgment in their anti-trust case, a well-known
> consumer advocate wrote:
> 
>     "The agreement should require that this information
> (interoperability) be as freely available as possible, with a
> high burden on Microsoft to justify secrecy. Indeed, there is
> ample evidence that Microsoft is focused on strategies to cripple
> the free software movement, which it publicly considers an
> important competitive threat. This is particularly true for
> software developed under the GNU Public License (GPL), which is
> used in GNU/Linux, the most important rival to Microsoft in the
> server market."(1)
> 
> In the same letter he writes, "One of Microsoft's high-level
> executives says (published) that freely distributed software code
> such as Linux could stifle innovation and that legislators need
> to understand the threat."
> 
> Little doubt exists that Microsoft has reached legislators. In an
> earlier article added to this one below, we discussed how a
> dispute in the House Ethics Committee has kept the members from
> meeting and considering House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's
> activities that could have ramifications for Microsoft
> (http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/38800/index.html). In
> making legislators aware of many issues, the Redmond company's
> financial reach may be part of why the committee has delayed
> their investigation. Perhaps everyone involved hopes that a delay
> will allow the heat to pass on this and other issues.
> 
>     A dispute that has kept the House Ethics Committee from
> considering Majority Leader Tom DeLay's activities may have
> ramifications for Microsoft. When one begins to untangle the
> remarkable political organization created by Microsoft and
> lobbyists Preston, Gates Ellis et al, you find some uncanny
> coincidences. 
> 
> The text from the earlier article appeared in the blockquote
> below:
> 
>     The ethics committee, the House's mechanism for enforcing
> rules for members, has operated for exactly one day since
> Congress convened in January. In the meanwhile, a former Preston,
> Gates and Ellis lobbyist, Jack Abramoff has become the target of
> several serious investigations and the focus of the D.C. media.
> 
>     Abramoff left Preston Gates in 2000. Even so, he's a problem
> for the firm's management. Reports have surfaced questioning
> Abramoff's financing of travel for lawmakers, especially House
> Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). All of the spending under
> investigation happened while Abramoff worked at Preston Gates.
> 
>     The Washington Post reported that airfare to London and
> Scotland in 2000 for House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was
> charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff.
> House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and
> related expenses from registered lobbyists.
>     How Does This Affect Microsoft
> 
>     Many people believe that Microsoft helped construct Preston,
> Gates & Ellis as an alter ego for the Business Software Alliance.
> The firm of William H. Gates Sr., father of Microsoft co-founder
> Bill Gates, merged with Preston in 1990. The later old line
> Seattle firm started when Harold Preston located in Seattle from
> Iowa in 1883 and began practicing law. Jim Ellis joined Preston
> in 1949.
> 
>     By getting William Gates Sr. together with Preston, Microsoft
> suddenly had an organization that looked like a law firm and not
> the legal department of Microsoft. The Seattle firm also had a
> small office in Washington, D.C. which helped Microsoft and the
> Business Software Alliance reach out and affect government
> policy.
> 
>     But, Preston, Gates & Ellis needed to show some lobbying fees
> and clients other than Microsoft and the BSA. Adding Abramoff did
> just that. Additionally, he had his own clients and did not have
> to work on any Microsoft or BSA business.
> 
>     Bad Choice
> 
>     Adding Abramoff accomplished the goal of diversifying
> Preston, Gates & Ellis revenue and client base. But, Jack
> Abramoff didn't fit the culture. While most lobbyists seem happy
> with a six figure salary, Jack made millions annually. He also
> could be considered a maverick.
> 
>     Now, the partners of Preston Gates must deal with the
> consequences of discovering their firm is listed on the invoice
> for Tom DeLay's plane fare to Scotland. They may also have to
> consider how deep and far the probe of their firm may go. For
> example, both Preston Gates and the Business Software Alliance
> are listed as contributors to the campaign of Senator Patrick J.
> Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judicial committee that ruled
> on the Government's settlement with Microsoft.
> 
>     Meanwhile House majority leader Tom DeLay says that expenses
> on his trip were paid by a nonprofit organization and that the
> financial arrangements for it were proper. He contends that he
> had no way of knowing that any lobbyist financially supported the
> trip, either directly or through reimbursements to the nonprofit
> organization.
> 
>     Non-profit organizations, foundations, multiple corporate
> entities seem like the products of a firm like Preston, Gates &
> Ellis. Someone will want to look into those issues. For example,
> on June 7, 2005, Bill Gates profile on CampaignMoney.com shows
> that he's contributed $59,100 since 1999 to all political
> candidates. Of course, that's personal money. Given the tens of
> millions of dollars attributed to Microsoft in campaign
> contributions, it might look like some kind of front
> organizations have made contributions beneficially for the
> welfare of the richest man in the world.
> 
>     And the connection between Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff: DeLay
> helped defeat a bill that would tax Preston Gates clients -
> American Indian casinos. You have to also wonder if those casinos
> used Microsoft Office.
> 
> What we did not discuss in our earlier article, however, was the
> possibility that the committee could remain deadlocked for other
> reasons. Such reasons could involve additional payments which
> Preston Gates may have some difficulty explaining. Should the
> ethics committee meet, some democrats could face similar problems
> for Tom DeLay. According to the the Washington Post, other names
> are beginning to surface, including both House and Senate members
> (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158.html).
> Names discussed in the article include Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.)
> and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), Sen. Conrad
> Burns (R-Mont.), Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.), Sen. Patty Murray
> (Wash.) and Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.).
> 
> While you might find the Washington Post's work admirable, there
> are some subtle changes in their reporting that grabbed my
> attention. For example, a switch has occurred in naming Jack
> Abramoff's employer. In our previous discussion, we referenced a
> washington Post story that said that Abramoff worked for Preston
> Gates. Even the Seattle Times wrote an article focused on Preston
> Gates' potential problems
> (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002260986_preston03m.html).
> For example, in a discussion of one of the firm's clients the
> article states:
> 
>     ...a California lawmaker recently urged a separate
> investigation into how the firm billed the Commonwealth of the
> Northern Mariana Islands after the auditor there reported the
> commonwealth "may have paid too much for services of Preston
> Gates. ... " Abramoff was the lead lobbyist. 
> 
> Since the April article, the Washington Post has stopped
> inquiring into Preston Gates activities with regard to improper
> finances. Back on April 24th, the Washington Post mentioned
> Preston Gates eight separate times while relating to Mr. DeLay's
> potential ethics violations. The Post never mentioned Greenberg
> Traurig in that article. In the June 3rd article, Greenberg
> Traurig gets six mentions and Preston Gates receives no mention
> at all.
> 
> Previously, Abramoff charged expenses to a credit card billed to
> Preston Gates, and the Post stated that. Now, Abramoff's
> connections while at Greenberg Traurig have become the focus of
> the Post's attention. Yet, the questionable ethics violations
> supposedly happened while Abramoff worked for Preston Gates and
> it was their problem.
> 
> Surprise
> 
> Does it surprise you that Melinda French Gates holds a seat on
> the Board of the Washington Post Co.? You can see a listing of
> the Board here
> (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-govHistDirectors).
> You might also notice one bridge partner sitting on that board.
> 
> Some people believe the seat of power in Washington, D.C. resides
> at the headquarters of the Washington Post. Certainly, membership
> on the Post's board would require a position of prominence in the
> world. Perhaps some people might wonder what Melinda Gates has
> accomplished to put her in such a seat of power.
> 
> We can forget Melinda Gates position for a little while. We just
> want to establish the fact that she's there in a position of some
> power. We also want to mention the possibility that some
> relationship exists between Preston Gates and Microsoft's largest
> shareholders.
> 
> Here's another piece that might fit something in the puzzle.
> Charles Cooper wrote a short article in his C/Net News.com blog
> about the DeLay Abramoff and possible Microsoft connection
> (http://news.com.com/2061-10787_3-5683973.html?tag=ubind.bld). He
> wrote:
> 
>     ... what piqued my interest was the tidbit that the (Tom
> DeLay) flight invoice listed Preston Gates & Ellis, the firm that
> then employed Abramoff as a lobbyist. Computer history buffs will
> recall that Preston Gates & Ellis was co-founded by William H.
> Gates, Sr., the father of Microsoft founder Bill Gates.
> 
>     I point that out because only last week the New York Times
> reported that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had
> contributed a substantial sums to the DeLay Foundation for Kids
> since 2001. 
> 
> For more information on the Gates contribution, see this
> hyperlink
> (http://citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=148).
> 
> Where the Money Goes
> 
> Let's begin to make some sense of Microsoft's puzzling maze of
> influence. We'll only travel a short distance before seeing
> multiple paths on which we can travel. Regardless of the path we
> take, Microsoft has paved it with money.
> 
> First, let's get a little glimpse of the firm of Preston Gates &
> Ellis from the Seattle Times article mentioned above:
> 
>     Preston Gates traces its roots to Harold Preston, who arrived
> in Seattle from Iowa in 1883 and started a solo law practice.
> Civic activist Jim Ellis joined in 1949. The firm of William H.
> Gates Sr., father of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, merged with
> Preston in 1990.
> 
>     In 1973, the firm opened its Washington, D.C., office,
> including on its nameplate former Democratic Congressman Lloyd
> Meeds, who represented northwest Washington from 1965 to 1979,
> and Emanuel Rouvelas, former counsel to the Senate Commerce
> Committee. 
> 
> As I mentioned Monday, getting William Gates Sr. together with
> Preston, Microsoft suddenly had an organization that looked like
> a law firm and not the legal department of Microsoft. The office
> in Washington, D.C. offered Microsoft and the Business Software
> Alliance a new way to reach out and affect government policy.
> 
> In Figure 1, you can see an excerpt from a lobbyist filing form
> showing Preston Gates & Ellis et al registered as lobbyists for
> the Business Software Alliance. Many such forms exist in the
> database at http://sopr.senate.gov. We can now ask some questions
> we would hope our legislators might ask. Who paid Preston Gates
> to lobby on behalf of the BSA? From where did the funds come?
> What did Preston Gates do? Doesn't the BSA have a staff of its
> own lobbyists? What do the BSA lobbyists do?
> 
> > http://lxer.com/lxer/tom/38971/fig1.png
> Figure 1 - Excerpt of Lobbyist Registration for Showing BSA as
> Preston Gates client
> 
> In Figure 2, you we can see another excerpt of a registration
> document showing that Preston Gates & Ellis also lobbies for
> Microsoft. In Figure 2 we can also see some of the issues that
> the lobbyists handled for Microsoft, who also has their own
> in-house lobbyists.
> 
> > http://lxer.com/lxer/tom/38971/fig2.png
> Figure 2 - Excerpt of Lobbyist Registration for Showing Microsoft
> as Preston Gates client
> 
> In Figure 3, you can see the results of a query in the US
> Senate's lobbyist registration database. Preston Gates & Ellis
> has worked with the BSA for several years. Each link takes you to
> pages of information, names of lobbyists, expenses, issues on
> which the lobbyists work and updates when personnel rotate to
> other projects.
> 
> > http://lxer.com/lxer/tom/38971/fig3.png
> Figure 3 - An Example Query from which You Can Find Raw Lobbying
> Information
> 
> In Figure 4 you can see another excerpt of one of the
> registration forms found in the Senate lobbyist database. This
> excerpt appears to tell us that Jack Abramoff did work as a
> lobbyist for the BSA while at Preston Gates. While the Washington
> Post has started steering away from Preston Gates & Ellis, the
> information on this registration form should lead someone to look
> into or inquire about Abramoff's activities connected with the
> BSA.
> 
> > http://lxer.com/lxer/tom/38971/fig4.png
> Figure 4 - Excerpt from Registration Statement Showing Abramoff
> as a Lobbyist Working with the BSA
> 
> As one begins to examine the relationship among the BSA,
> Microsoft and Preston Gates & Ellis, perhaps a pattern emerges.
> One would want to take care before calling them interlocking
> companies or alter-egos. Still, consider the fact that the BSA
> enforces licensing for Microsoft. Some allegations exist that say
> the BSA waives penalties for non-compliant companies if those
> companies buy upgrades from Microsoft. We do not know if the BSA
> has that power. One would want to find out.
> 
> Additionally, profiles of firm members at Preston Gates & Ellis
> provide information saying that many members of the firm work for
> the BSA. Does that mean the BSA outsources personnel from Preston
> Gates & Ellis? To answer that, someone would have to inquire and
> examine the evidence and arrive at a factual determination.
> Understanding the relationships among the firms seems important
> in light of many unexplained situations.
> 
> The next two Figures will provide some insight into reasons one
> might believe that the three companies need examination. While
> circumstantial, the close relationships and inner workings could
> make one believe that not everything fits.
> 
> In Figure 5, one can see that the Chairman of the Senator
> Judiciary Committee received funds for re-election from
> Microsoft. This is the same Microsoft that the same the committee
> questioned with regard to the last Federal anti-trust settlement.
> 
> > http://lxer.com/lxer/tom/38971/fig5.png
> Figure 5 - Listing of Top Contributors to Patrick Leahy's
> campaign for the Senate in Vermont
> 
> In Figure 6, we excerpted two contributions and moved them into
> view of the camera. These contributions came from an earlier
> Senate race. Notice that both the BSA and Preston Gates & Ellis
> contributed to the Leahy campaign.
> 
> > http://lxer.com/lxer/tom/38971/fig6.png
> Figure 6 - Listing of Contributors to Patrick Leahy's campaign
> for the Senate in Vermont
> 
> Difficulties exist in following Microsoft's money trail because
> of the many sources of data. Additionally, the registration forms
> of many candidates, lobbyists, assistant, staff, etc. do not
> exist in digital formats. One cannot mine the data easily. One
> might consider this an ideal scenario for a monopolist whose
> compliance audits related to its settlement with the Department
> of Justice exist in secrecy.
> Wag the Dog
> 
> In a statement written by Senator Leahy on December 12, 2001
> entitled, "The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future", he
> states:
> 
>     Our courts have developed a test for determining the
> effectiveness of a remedy in a Sherman Act case: The remedy must
> end the anticompetitive practices, it must deprive the wrongdoer
> of the fruits of the wrongdoing, and it must ensure that the
> illegality does not recur. The Tunney Act also requires that any
> settlement of such a case serve the public interest. These are
> all high standards, but they are reasonable ones. In this case,
> the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc and writing unanimously, found
> that Microsoft had engaged in serious exclusionary practices, to
> the detriment of their competitors and, thus, to all consumers.
> Today, we must satisfy ourselves that these matters have been
> addressed and redressed, or find out why not. 
> 
> Considering the question Senator Leahy posed on December 12,
> 2001, we should look again to the statement of the well-known
> consumer advocate we quoted at the start of this article. He had
> a different slant when he wrote:
> 
>     It is astonishing that the agreement fails to provide any
> penalty for Microsoft's past misdeeds, creating both the sense
> that Microsoft is escaping punishment because of its
> extraordinary political and economic power, and undermining the
> value of antitrust penalties as a deterrent. Second, the
> agreement does not adequately address the concerns about
> Microsoft's failure to abide by the spirit or the letter of
> previous agreements, offering a weak oversight regime that
> suffers in several specific areas. Indeed, the proposed
> alternative dispute resolution for compliance with the agreement
> embraces many of the worst features of such systems, operating in
> secrecy, lacking independence, and open to undue influence from
> Microsoft. 
> 
> In addition to the hundreds of candidates receiving money from
> Microsoft, the combination of Microsoft, the BSA and Preston
> Gates & Ellis have access and use the services of former powerful
> people from Federal government. Here's a list of the lobbyists,
> their firms and former positons for whom Microsoft has access:
> 
> Bill Archer, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, U.S. House of
> Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (R-Texas)
> Richard Armey, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP, U.S. House of
> Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (R-Texas)
> Lloyd Bentsen, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP, U.S. House of
> Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-Texas)
> James Blanchard, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP, U.S. House of
> Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-Mich.)
> Bill Brewster, Capitol Hill Consulting Group, U.S. House of
> Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-Okla.)
> John Buchanan, PodestaMattoon, U.S. House of Representatives,
> Member, U.S. House of Representatives (R-Ala.)
> Rod Chandler, Downey McGrath Group Inc., U.S. House of
> Representatives, Member, U.S. House of Representatives (R-Wash.)
> Daniel Coats, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP, U.S. Senate,
> Member, Senate (R-Ind.)
> James Courter, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary LLP, U.S. House of
> Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (R-N.J.)
> John Culver, Arent Fox PLLC, U.S. Senate, Member, Senate (D-Iowa)
> Robert Davis, Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP, U.S.
> House of Representatives, Member, House of Representatives
> (R-Mich.)
> Robert Dawson, Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., Army Corps
> of Engineers, Assistant Secretary; Deputy Assistant Secretary of
> the Army for Civil Works
> Thomas Downey, Downey McGrath Group Inc., U.S. House of
> Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-N.Y.)
> John Doyle, Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., U.S. Department
> of Army, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
> Vic Fazio, Clark & Weinstock Inc., U.S. House of Representatives,
> Member, House of Representatives (D-Calif.)
> David Funderburk, Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP, U.S.
> House of Representatives, Member, House of Representatives
> (R-N.C.)
> Slade Gorton, Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP, U.S.
> Senate, Member, Senate (R-Wash.)
> Willis Gradison, Patton Boggs, U.S. House of Representatives,
> Member, House of Representatives (R-Ohio)
> Jim Hall, Federalist Group, National Transportation Safety Board
> (NTSB), Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board
> Ed Jenkins, Palmetto Group, U.S. House of Representatives,
> Member, U.S. House of Representatives (D-Ga.)
> Ray Kogovsek, WPP Group plc, U.S. House of Representatives,
> Member, U.S. House of Representatives (D-Colo.)
> Gregory Laughlin, Patton Boggs, U.S. House of Representatives,
> Member, House of Representatives (R-Texas).
> Ray McGrath, Downey McGrath Group Inc., U.S. House of
> Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (R-N.Y.)
> Lloyd Meeds, Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP, U.S. House
> of Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-Wash.)
> Leon Panetta, Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., U.S. House of
> Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-Calif.)
> John Podesta, PodestaMattoon, White House Office, Chief of Staff
> to President William Clinton
> Fred Rooney, Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., U.S. House of
> Representatives, Member, House of Representatives (D-Pa.)
> William Schachte, Blank & Rome LLP, U.S. Department of Defense
> (DOD), Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy
> Rodney Slater, Patton Boggs, U.S. Department of Transportation
> (DOT), Secretary of Transportation
> Bob Walker, WPP Group plc, U.S. House of Representatives, Member,
> House of Representatives (R-Pa.)
> Vin Weber, Clark & Weinstock Inc., U.S. House of Representatives,
> Member, House of Representatives (R-Minn.)
> Charles Wilson, Palmetto Group, U.S. House of Representatives,
> Member, House of Representatives (D-Texas)
> 
> 
> Some Other Friends in High Places
> 
> Microsoft has unparalleled influence throughout the Federal
> government. On the cover of a recent edition of VarBusiness
> Magazine dated June 26, 2005 the editors presented a large
> headline which read:
> 
>     It's A Microsoft World. Five years after running afoul of the
> Feds, Microsoft is as powerful than ever. Pushing a platform
> instead of products could make it stronger still. Why nothing
> seems to stop it.
> 
> Few people who have researched the company believe that Microsoft
> ran afoul of the Feds. How could a company that owns the Feds run
> afoul of them? Microsoft wields more power than the Federal
> government. Reading the following, you will notice just a single
> handful of people who have vested interests in making sure the
> Federal government stays out of Microsoft's business.
> 
> Phil Bond: Undersecretary of Commerce for Technology. Bond is the
> highest-ranking appointed official who deals with technology. He
> is the former top aide to U.S. Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-Wash.),
> whose district includes Microsoft's hometown of Redmond. Bond's
> top policy aide at Commerce was Connie Correll Partoyan, the
> former executive vice president of TechNet (a Microsoft-funded
> trade association), who recently took a lobbying job for the law
> firm Preston, Gates, Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds.
> 
> William Kolasky: Appointed deputy assistant attorney general for
> international enforcement for the Justice Department's antitrust
> division in October 2001. Kolasky was a lawyer for the
> Association for Competitive Technology, a group whose largest
> contributor is Microsoft, and wrote a friend of the court brief
> supporting Microsoft in its antitrust lawsuit.
> 
> Ed Gillespie : Until recently, he headed the Republican National
> Committee. Gillespie helped build the Republican party and
> identified candidates for state and federal elections. He has
> returned to Quinn Gillespie & Associates. Prior to becoming the
> head of the RNC he was a Microsoft lobbyist. Microsoft paid his
> lobbying firm, Quinn Gillespie & Associates, $1.2 million between
> 2001 and 2003, according to the Center for Public Integrity.
> 
> Richard Wallis: Microsoft's associate general counsel chairs the
> American Bar Association's antitrust section. This group
> influences how much oversight federal judges have over antitrust
> settlements. In late June, a U.S. appeals court rejected claims
> that Microsoft's 2001 deal with the government was too lenient.
> Stay Tuned
> 
> Many difficulties associated with examining Microsoft's business
> practices exist. Many people have attempted to catalog and
> chronicle the various tactics used. The amount of material seems
> overwhelming.
> 
> When one looks at such data, the human perception mechanism
> begins to shut down. To defend itself, people become confused and
> go into states of denial or apathy. While we can discuss much
> more evidence, I consider it a good approach to simply digest the
> material in smaller chunks.
> 
> Hopefully we raised questions that people should examine. In the
> mean time, I will leave you with this quote I have seen
> frequently.
> 
> "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate
> the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger
> than their democratic State itself. That in it's [sic] essence,
> is Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group
> or by any controlling private power."
> 
> -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message proposing the "Standard Oil"
> Monopoly Investigation, 1938
> 
> Respectfully submitted
> 
> Notes:
> 
> (1)Letter from Ralph Nader to Renata B. Hesse January 28, 2002
> http://www.cptech.org/ms/nader-doj01282002.html

-- 

RIAA is the RISK!  Our NET is P2P!
http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.