Palaces For The People
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
From: (Psalm 110)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: CATO, Kochtopus, Bill Gates, Microsoft, Linux, Open Source Software, Freedom
Message-ID: <>

The flagship of the KOCHTOPUS, CATO INSTITUTE, treated Bill Gates like
royalty when he visited:

Cato founder and president Ed Crane (Right) with MICROSOFT CEO Bill
Gates June 15, 1999

CATO INSTITUTE, and other front organizations and propaganda mills
controlled by the KOCH INDUSTRIES empire of "Think Tank$ and
In$titute$" have promoted monopolist Gates and taken swipes at Linux
and "Open Source" software consistantly over years. There is
considerable track record of planted news stories in national press,
subversion of legislative and judicial process, and unscrupulous
hidden funding posed as grass-roots citizen initiatives.

This is a partial survey of the Koch agenda to support a handful of
subversive billionaires to overturn freedoms, and transfer America
into their domination and control.

This present collection is of special interest to the Open Source
software community trying to understand the nature of pernicious
public attacks for every dirrection at once.


Who Owns Ideas? The War Over Global Intellectual Property
by David S. Evans - November 1, 2002
David S. Evans is Senior Vice President at NERA Economic Consulting,

The following is a book review of Copy Fights: The Future of
Intellectual Property in the Information Age edited by Adam Thierer
and Wayne Crews. ...

... Battle Lines

The meaning of these disputes and how they should be resolved is the
focus of Copy Fights, a new book of essays on intellectual property
published by the libertarian CATO INSTITUTE. ...

... Aside from abortion it is hard to think of a public-policy
controversy in which the positions are more polarized, the claims more
apocalyptic, and the language more colorful. ... Greens and
Libertarians doubt anyone should own ideas, while spike-haired
musicians and entertainment moguls do not want their creations
Napsterized. The fervor is reminiscent of religious debates and for
the same reason: "arguments over the proper scope of copyright and
patent law ... assume knowledge of things unknown and unknowable," as
Tom Bell, a professor at Chapman University, writes in his
contribution to Copy Fights.

Bell is right up to a point. We have known for centuries that owning
mathematical theorems and other ideas raises more puzzles than does
owning horses or other tangible property. Although no culture has
allowed anyone to own a theorem, many modern ones let artists assert
ownership over their writing, paintings, or music for some period of
time, and most industrialized countries have given inventors of a
better mousetrap a monopoly for a decade or two. These conventions
vary across and within countries in maddening ways. ... Broad
principles that advance the public interest govern the ownership of
intellectual property.

As the contributors to Copy Fights demonstrate, intellectual property
protection is not a field of bright lines and clear rules. Protecting
ideas always demands a delicate balance between competing objectives
and values: stimulating creativity but thwarting monopoly; creating
knowledge yet disseminating it broadly; enforcing rules while
responding to change. Economic, technical, and social changes have
complicated the balance between these competing goals and renewed
debate over who should own what ideas and for how long. Nevertheless,
it is a time-tested proposition that society benefits enormously when
the expression or product of some ideas is owned and exploited for
profit. The time has come to discuss once again the limits of that
proposition, not its centrality. why now?

The current explosion in controversy over the protection of ideas has
three main causes. First, brainpower drives the modern economy: there
are more demands to own ideas and more demands for cheaper access to
ideas. Second, technological change has made it harder to protect
ideas. More people want to use technology to get access to
intellectual property. The owners of this property want to stop or at
least limit these attempts. Third, globalization has made it easier
for intellectual property to spread to parts of the world with weaker
protection of ideas. In a variant of Gresham's Law, the one nation
that does not protect patents within its borders can drive down global
standards, making it harder to enforce ownership rights everywhere.

... What is new today is that consumers and their advocates, using
technology to gain increasing access to patented content, are
undermining the very premise of intellectual property protection. In
his contribution to Copy Fights, John Perry Barlow, a former lyricist
for the Grateful Dead and cofounder of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, a digital civil liberties organization, says that "strict
control over content by a handful of media companies limits free
speech and thought." He resents the idea that publishers can prevent
someone from copying a poem off the Internet. Ideas, he argues, "need
to be free to mix with one another, as living things do in nature."

... Non-exhaustibility and cheap reproducibility create an important
dilemma: how to maximize the value of intellectual property for the
public. Once an idea has been created it would seem best to make it
available to everyone. It does not cost anything from society's
standpoint, and many benefit. But that leaves nothing for the idea
creator. To get an idea created society may have to form a pact with
the inventor. If you create that idea society will allow you to sell
it (strictly speaking, the "expression of the idea") for a profit.
Advocates of free intellectual property always need to be reminded
that making ideas free after the fact may kill the incentives to
create ideas in the first place. ...

... Supporters of stronger intellectual property rights need a
reminder too. They have struck a bargain with the public. You create,
we reward. But rewards have strings attached. Patents, copyrights, and
trademarks provide a way for creators to charge for their products.
They also provide incentives for sharing ideas with the public --
patents do this most clearly since the creator has to disclose the
invention to get ownership rights.

Creators sometimes object to this bargain. "If I spend $100 million on
a factory no one can ever take it from me, but if I spend $100 million
on a cure for cancer I only get a 20-year patent. What is the
difference?" One response is "I could have come up with the one-click
shopping method if I had thought about it for 20 seconds. Why should get a 20-year patent on that?" And therein lies the
problem. Many people can come up with the same idea by putting their
minds to it. So creating an idea is not the same as creating a
factory. The same goes for ownership. ...

... The entertainment industry has made intellectual property
protection an easy target. The original copyright law in the United
States, enacted in 1790, gave the author 14 years of protection and
another 14 if he or she was still living. Those numbers doubled in
1909. As Lessig has pointed out, only half jokingly, it seems that
every time Mickey Mouse is about to fall into the public domain
Congress gives him (and other copyrights) a new lease on life.
Congress increased the renewal period to 47 years in 1976, around the
time Mickey's number came up. Then, Disney wooed Congress to get the
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998; copyrights now last
for the inventor's lifetime plus 70 years. This breaks the social
bargain. Walt Disney created Mickey knowing that his company would
profit from his creation for the 56 years that prevailed under the
1909 act. The public kept its end of the bargain. And since only ex
ante incentives for investment matter, society gets nothing from
giving more money for ideas already created. ...

... Unfortunately, the public health field is not the only one in
which the argument against the ownership of ideas is gaining ground.
Today, governments around the globe are being asked to use only
computer software that is available under an open-source license. The
General Public License (GPL) is the most common license and is used
for the most popular open-source software package, the Linux computer
operating system. Although many Linux and open-source software users
are content to co-exist with the for-profit world, the GPL can quickly
suffocate intellectual property rights. The GPL allows anyone to
distribute copies of open-source software for free or use the source
code to create a derivative software program. But if anyone uses some
of the Linux code in creating a derivative work or complementary
program, that software, too, must be distributed for free and its
source code made available to all. Adherents of the GPL refer to the
system as "copyleft," fully understanding that it forces any
proprietary software maker who wants to use code licensed under the
GPL to surrender its intellectual property to the commons. ...

... This article originally appeared in Foreign Affairs on November 1,

Anti-MICROSOFT Conservatives: They Just Don't Get It
by Robert A. Levy -- January 5, 2000
Robert Levy is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the CATO

... Joined by a few conservative fellow-travelers, Jackson warns that
MICROSOFT's market power makes it invulnerable to rival operating
systems. "Linux's open-source development model," to cite one Jackson
example, "shows no signs of [overcoming] Windows' enormous reservoir
of applications, [which] prevents non-MICROSOFT operating systems from
competing." Surprise! Investors know better. Back in August, shares of
RedHat Inc., which provides Linux support, were initially offered at
$14. Four months later, they are trading at $275. On December 9, VA
Linux, which makes PCs that run Linux, first came to market at $30 per
share. By close of business, the stock was $239 -- the biggest one-day
gain in history.

Not all conservatives missed those obvious lessons. One free-market
economist who hasn't lost his bearings is David S. Evans, of National
Economic Research Associates. Writing in the current issue of
REGULATION (Cato publication), Evans criticizes Jackson's findings for
their artificiality, emerging as they did from an unreal world that
could exist only within the four walls of a courtroom. Evans offers
this representative handful of Jackson's assertions, wholly at odds
with observed facts: ...

... # MICROSOFT's applications barrier is so impregnable that neither
Apple nor Linux can put a chink in it; yet MICROSOFT had to spend
hundreds of millions to destroy Netscape and Sun, for fear that
software developers would flock to their systems. ...

... It's not just conservatives who should be outraged when a company
rises above the crowd only to have its head severed by bureaucrats and
lawyers who are manifestly ignorant of how businesses function. But
conservatives, presumably committed to private property and free
markets, should be especially aggrieved. Before the harm is
irreparable, before the Justice Department demonstrates that the law
can truly be, as Dickens' Mr. Bumble said, "a ass," misguided
conservatives need to reexamine their premises. This pernicious
lawsuit should be reversed on appeal or abandoned by the next
administration. [Written before the 2000 election.]

Europe's Dabbling Hands in U.S. Business Affairs
by Alan Reynolds -- August 23, 2003
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the CATO INSTITUTE and a
nationally syndicated columnist.

As if it wasn't bad enough to have both state and federal prosecutors
trying to fine and regulate American business to death by whim, the
European Union is now getting into that game. MICROSOFT's deep pockets
are, of course, an even more tempting target than Wall Street's. And
any European pickpocket's best friend is antitrust -- a sport where
government officials bet with other people's money and make up the
rules as the game progresses.

The new European version of the old MICROSOFT antitrust game has gone
on nearly five years, so far. EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monte
finally got around to accusing MICROSOFT of doing something terribly
naughty by: (1) giving consumers for free Media Player with Windows,
and (2) not giving competitors a free tour of the inner workings of
Windows. Those odd complaints were accompanied by threats of big
fines, which could theoretically top $3 billion. The stock market took
one look at the evident absurdity of the charges and yawned, dropping
MICROSOFT stock by one penny. ...

... One of the EU's two complaints is that MICROSOFT has an advantage
in relatively inexpensive servers, those that link office PCs or
workstations, because servers based on UNIX or Linux supposedly have
trouble communicating with desktops using Windows. If that was a real
problem with cheap servers, why would it not also be a problem with
costly servers? If big UNIX and Linux servers also had trouble talking
to Windows desktops, then Windows desktops would not work well on the
Internet, which is dominated by UNIX-Linux servers. ...

... In England, the Economist warns of a danger that this European
meddling with a hugely important U.S. company "could trigger a
trans-Atlantic conflict of the sort that was widely discussed when
General Electric's takeover of Honeywell was blocked by Monti after it
had cleared regulatory hurdles in America."

Unless we have lost all sense of national pride and moral outrage,
that seems the least the EU should expect.

This article was published in the WASHINGTON TIMES, Aug. 17, 2003.
[WASHINGTON TIMES is Sun Myong Moon's publication.]

U.S. v. MICROSOFT: Time for a Reality Check
by Robert A. Levy -- September 11, 1999
Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the CATO

Here it is, the centerpiece of the government's crusade against
MICROSOFT, verbatim from its 800-page proposed "Findings of Fact"
deposited with federal judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on August 10:
"MICROSOFT substantially impeded the most effective channels of
distribution . . . and, ultimately, effectively eliminated Netscape as
a platform threat." Does anyone, even within the sequestered halls of
the Justice Department, really believe that rubbish? ...

... Even on MICROSOFT's home turf -- the operating system market,
which the company supposedly rules -- alternatives to Windows are
available, including MacOS, Unix and Solaris. Apple, with 13 million
customers, has reported sharply rising iMac sales of which nearly half
are to new users or MICROSOFT converts. Perhaps most significant,
upstart Linux has become a palpable threat; it's now loaded on an
Intel platform by more than 100 dealers worldwide and serves an
estimated 10 million users. Among the PC makers who offer Linux are
giants IBM, Compaq, Hewlett-Packard and Dell. Those companies, along
with Oracle, Intel and Netscape, have also invested in Linux
distributors -- one of which, Red Hat, enjoyed an astonishing 300%
jump in stock value on August 11, when it first came to market,
bucking a sharp downturn for other Internet stocks. ...

MICROSOFT, Decision Two
by Robert A. Levy and Noah Pollak -- April 6, 2000
Robert Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and Noah Pollak
is manager of editorial services at the CATO INSTITUTE.

... And Linux, which now runs more Web sites than any other server
operating system, came too late to be included in the government's
complaint, so it doesn't count either. Then there are hand-held
computers, sub-notebooks, set-top TV boxes and other consumer
electronics products, which also aren't Intel. And finally, 15 percent
of PCs are marketed "naked," without an operating system. Reynolds
estimates that MICROSOFT's real market share is under 70 percent. ...

... Absent from Judge Jackson's argument is any explanation of why
most consumers are so satisfied with MICROSOFT's products; how
millions of other consumers managed to break free of MICROSOFT's
monopolistic stranglehold and buy Apple, OS2, Linux, Unix and other
competing systems; and why consumers who are alleged to have been
harmed have never complained.

The contours of the high-tech world are changing every day. As the
marketplace reinvents itself, MICROSOFT may discover that it is
competing with yesterday's technology -- struggling to match both
Internet upstarts and new software-media giants like AOL-Netscape-Time
Warner. ...

MICROSOFT is no monopoly
by Robert Levy -- January 15, 1999
Robert Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the CATO

... What about MICROSOFT's purported 85-90 percent share of the PC
operating system market? Doesn't that, by itself, signify monopoly
power? The answer, unequivocally, is no. First, roughly 1 customer in
8 doesn't use MICROSOFT. Alternatives are avail -- MacOS, Unix, OS/2
and Linux to name a few. Apple alone, with 13 million users, has
reported substantial recent gains in market share. ...

... Third, MICROSOFT must compete against itself. Even if the company
were to get out of the business this afternoon, all of its installed
systems would continue to function indefinitely. So in order to sell a
new product like Windows 98, MICROSOFT must convince its customers to
pay more money, learn a new system and run the risk that other
software applications will be incompatible. That imposes a powerful
discipline on MICROSOFT's behavior. It is utterly inconceivable that
the company would alienate its 300 million existing consumers.

In short, the major competition for Windows 98 is Windows 95, which
itself captured only one-third of the market share. Two-thirds of PC
users still run DOS or older versions of Windows or non-MICROSOFT

If MICROSOFT had such enormous market power, how come it could
"coerce" only 33% of its users to upgrade to its flagship product?

This article originally appeared in USA Today on January 14, 1999.

How Not to Define Business Monopoly
by Alan Reynolds -- November 12, 2002
Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the CATO INSTITUTE and a
nationally syndicated columnist.

The 1998 MICROSOFT antitrust case seems finally settled, but it is
hard to be completely sure about private suits, the states and the
European Union. One reason we cannot be entirely certain this
foolishness is over is that the Appeals Court judges never took a
close enough look at the original "findings of fact," particularly the
abuse of market share figures to prove monopoly. Since that label
stuck, it still invites legal harassment. ...

... The technological speculations behind this case were as fanciful
as these phony facts. The government claimed MICROSOFT feared Netscape
in 1994-95 because they supposedly believed some sort of mysterious
software tailored to require Netscape would run on any operating
system, because Netscape was available for Mac and Linux.

In reality, the actual threat was always the Internet itself, which
can often substitute for desktop software. MICROSOFT worried that
Netscape's portal had quickly become the gateway for nearly all
eyeballs looking to get on the Web. Left unchallenged (by Yahoo as
well as MICROSOFT), a Netscape monopoly might have excluded MICROSOFT
from Internet content and services. Such issues get a bit technical,
but are fully explained in a book I wrote last year, "The MICROSOFT
Antitrust Appeal."

Those who remain determined to call MICROSOFT a monopoly keep
fabricating meaningless market share figures. The Washington Post
recently published graphs purporting to show that MICROSOFT's share of
operating systems is 92.5 percent and its share of office suites is
93.9 percent. ...

... Consider all the new non-MICROSOFT choices that have sprung up
since the 1998 MICROSOFT trial ended:

First, Linux now runs about half of all Internet servers and is making
inroads into desktops. Wal-Mart sells cheap personal computers that
run Linux with a Windows-like look, including the blatant ripoff of

Second, the line has blurred between a laptop computer and other
portable devices. Best Buy runs ads describing a Palm Pilot with a
folding keyboard and Internet access as the ultimate lightweight
laptop. Other such laptop replacements have the keyboard built in.
AlphaSmart's Dana is a "Palm Powered laptop alternative."

Nokia Communicator uses a Symbian operating system to handle word
processing, spreadsheets, e-mail and more. The Linux-based Sharp
Zaurus does all that on an even smaller scale. When the government
added up the "relevant market" in which Windows laptops had to
compete, however, it failed to include any of these handy devices. In
fact, the "relevant market" did not even include Apple's popular
laptops. ...

... Yet the "relevant market" that MICROSOFT is still accused of
monopolizing has been somehow defined to completely exclude Sun, Apple
and a rapidly growing array of lightweight devices powered by Palm,
Linux and Symbian operating systems. ...

... The government's effort to label MICROSOFT as a monopoly was
founded on a blend of technological fantasy and statistical fraud. It
is terrific that the case is settled, but too bad the fraud continues.

This article was published in the WASHINGTON TIMES, Nov. 10, 2002.
[WASHINGTON TIMES is Sun Myong Moon's publication.]

Social Engineering by Legal Brief
by Doug Bandow -- December 2, 1999
Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the CATO INSTITUTE, is a nationally
syndicated columnist.

If you can't send in bureaucrats, you can send in lawyers. That seems
to be the new strategy of the social engineers. Destroy the tobacco
industry and gun makers through liability lawsuits. Ruin MICROSOFT
with federal and state antitrust actions and assorted private cases.
Set precedents to apply against any company in any market. ...

... It is tough to distill Judge Thomas Jackson's 207-page opinion,
let alone the entire Justice Department case, into one article. But
perhaps most unappreciated by MICROSOFT's critics is the growing
competition facing the company. Not only is there Apple's iMac, but
also Unix and Linux.

In a market as fluid as that for software, MICROSOFT could also find
itself displaced because of changing applications of Java and
developments from the AOL-Netscape merger. Observes software developer
turned legal scholar Robert Levy: "MICROSOFT is behaving not like a
monopolist but like a company whose very survival is at stake. Its
prices are down, and its technology is struggling to keep pace with an
explosion of software innovation." ...

... In its initial complaint, the government missed the role of Linux,
now running on 8 million computers. The Justice Department warned that
MICROSOFT was going to strengthen its monopoly by making deals with
Internet providers, which have all turned out to be minor players
compared with AOL's various channels. ...

This article appeared in The WASHINGTON TIMES, November 28, 1999.
[WASHINGTON TIMES is Sun Myong Moon's publication.]

MICROSOFT's Illusory Barrier to Entry
by Richard McKenzie -- September 2, 2000
Richard McKenzie is a professor at the University of California,
Irvine, adjunct scholar of the CATO INSTITUTE, and author of Trust on
Trial: How the MICROSOFT Case Is Reframing the Rules of Competition.

... Moreover, many of the programs were written for non-Windows
operating systems like Linux, Apple and IBM. Many others are multiple
versions of the same program - for example, the "standard" and
"professional" editions of WordPerfect - or the same program packaged
differently for multiple user systems. When the non-Windows programs
are deleted and the double (and triple and quadruple) counting is
eliminated, no more than 1,300 unique Windows desktop applications
remain - less than 2 percent of what the judge found as legal "fact."
Granted, there are 3,500 games and educational programs available from
Amazon, but many of them are also non-Windows programs, versions of
the same program, or outdated.

Even more important than the inflated overall count is the judge's
presumption that huge numbers of applications are necessary to
challenge MICROSOFT. But does a challenger really need to duplicate
all 517 disk backup programs that are now available for Windows? In a
June survey of executive MBA students at the University of California,
Irvine, 19 percent of the respondents used only the six programs that
come with MICROSOFT Office suite; only 16 percent used more than six
additional programs. That means 84 percent of the respondents used in
total a dozen or fewer applications. ...

Rewriting the Rules for High-tech Antitrust -- November 3, 1999
Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the CATO

Welcome to the post-modern world of high-tech antitrust, where big is
once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wake-up call to government
regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded
e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is
predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the
surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal,
and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment. That's the
Orwellian world in which MICROSOFT finds itself, a year into probably
the most important and manifestly the least justified antitrust
crusade of our generation. ...

... McNealy, who may be MICROSOFT's most vitriolic critic, predicts
that fewer than 50 percent of the devices accessing the Internet will
be Windows-equipped PCs by the year 2002, just 2 1/3 years from now.
That forecast comes from the same antagonist who complains that
"MICROSOFT operates beyond the constraints of market discipline."

The antitrust implications are crystal clear, especially to McNealy if
not to his collaborators at the Department of Justice. MICROSOFT has
zero leverage in a world where applications are written so that any
browser can run them and any operating system can access them. Whether
a user has MacOS, Unix, Linux or any other system, as long as he is
running a Web browser he has much the same capabilities as a Windows
user. That exciting development is here today; it's not a "could
happen in the future" item.

There's a good reason only a few companies are clamoring to compete
against MICROSOFT in the PC operating system market: It isn't a growth
market anymore. That opportunity has passed. The future is elsewhere.

This article appeared in the Seattle Times November 1, 1999

January 11, 2003

Antitrust: The Case for Repeal

by Robert A. Levy

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the CATO
INSTITUTE in Washington, DC.

... #5: Antitrust law is wielded most often by rent-seeking
businessmen and their allies in the political arena.
Instead of focusing on new and better products, disgruntled rivals try
to exploit the law -- consorting with members of the legislature,
their staffers, antitrust officials, and the best lobbying and public
relations firms that money can buy. Soon enough, the targeted company
responds in kind. Once upon a time, MICROSOFT conspicuously avoided
Washington, D.C. politicking. No more. Look at their beefed up
Washington offices. ...

... #8: A narrow definition of the "relevant market" can make any firm
a "monopolist."
In the MICROSOFT case, for example, the Justice Department stacked the
deck by defining all of MICROSOFT's rivals out of the market.
MICROSOFT competes, so we were told, only against other single-user
desktop PCs that run on an Intel chip. Thus, Apple's market share did
not count because Apple runs on a Motorola chip. Nor did Sun
Microsystems' share count because Sun, too, is not Intel-based --
except Sun's Solaris system, which is not single-user. As for Linux,
its market share came too late to be included in the government's
complaint, so it did not count either. ...

A version of this article appeared as "The MICROSOFT Moral: Repeal the
Antitrust Laws, for Starters," American Spectator, May 2000 [American
Spectator is Richard SCAIFE heavily-funded publication.]

MICROSOFT judge approves settlement
Joe Wilcox, CNET -- November 02, 2002

... In a small concession to the plaintiff states, the judge agreed
that MICROSOFT stridently maintained that it did nothing wrong in the
case. But that was no basis for unfairly punishing the company.

The "plaintiffs are correct that MICROSOFT has a tendency to minimize
the effects of its illegal conduct," the judge wrote. "Yet this
minimisation, however frustrating, does not require a remedy which
prodigiously exceeds even an expansive view of the illegal conduct."

Critics of the government's legal case welcomed Kollar-Kotelly's
decision, while reserving criticism for the broader antitrust action.

"It's good news, diluted by the fact that the case should never have
been brought in the first place," said Robert Levy, a senior fellow at
the conservative CATO INSTITUTE. "I don't imagine that the exceptions
(to the original settlement agreement) are going to cause MICROSOFT
much consternation."

Lobbying groups that have supported stronger restrictions on the
software giant said that the judge misinterpreted MICROSOFT's
continuing power over the technology industry.

"We believe that (the judge) sorely overestimated the value of the
proposed settlement," said Ken Wasch, president of the Software and
Information Industry Association, a trade group that has pushed for
stronger restraints on MICROSOFT's behavior.

"We're perplexed that she didn't recognize that MICROSOFT's antitrust
violations today extend far beyond the browser, into other
technologies and markets," Wasch said. ...

CNET Extends Marketing Relationship With MSN

... "By extending our successful two-year relationship with MSN to
include the WebCourier program, CNET aims to expand its audience by
steering new users to the No. 1 site for technology product
information," said Sam Lawrence, vice president of Consumer Marketing
at CNET. "CNET was recently rated the No. 1 technology content site by
Nielsen. We want to spread the good news and through our newsletter
let consumers know why we are getting such rave reviews." ...


ZDNet and MSN Form Technology Content and Services Alliance

ZDNet to Provide Award-Winning Content and New Services To MSN
Computing Central

SAN FRANCISCO and REDMOND, Wash. -- Nov. 14, 2000 -- CNET Networks
Inc.'s ZDNet and MSN today announced a strategic alliance making ZDNet
the premier provider of technology information and services, including
buying guides, to MSNĀ® Computing Central, MICROSOFT's online resource
that helps people stay current on computing news and products, solve
technical problems, share or develop ideas and expertise, and meet
other computer enthusiasts. The companies are teaming up to establish
one place on the Internet where consumers can go to get computing
information that helps them make smart buying decisions and be more
productive using technology in their everyday lives.

As part of the agreement, ZDNet and MSN have formed a content
development team dedicated to providing customized packages of ZDNet
information and services on MSN Computing Central, beginning later
this month. The MSN Computing Central site will include ZDNet's
technology news, product reviews, downloads, and help and how-to
content. This team will create computer hardware and software product
buying guides that will help the MSN audience make faster, more
informed buying decisions for technology products and services. ...

EC erects toll booth for MICROSOFT's open source rivals
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Published Thursday 25th March 2004 11:04 GMT

Far from penalizing MICROSOFT, Wednesday's decision by the European
Commission assures a bright future for the company as a patent
licensing operation, according to one representative only two open
source interests called to testify before the investigation.

Because MICROSOFT will be allowed to pursue royalty revenue from the
APIs it publishes, Jeremy Allison says that the projects such as
Samba, which he jointly leads, may face a prohibitive hurdle.
MICROSOFT's competitors use software such as Samba to access file and
print services on Windows machines. ...

... If MICROSOFT wants to charge for access to the APIs, he says,
"then this provision is useless as it explicitly excludes one of the
few potential competitors MICROSOFT has, the Free
Software/Open Source community." ...

... The right-wing CATO INSTITUTE denounced the EC MICROSOFT verdict
as "a corporate welfare programme for market losers". But this is a
conclusion that ignores both history and basic consumer equations of
value. ...

IP conference: copyright law has gone too far
By Grant Gross
Published Friday 16th November 2001

... "This is going to be an interesting and complex struggle, because
it is in the nature of open systems to breed closed systems, since for
example, an open system like a free-market economy tends to gravitate
toward a natural monopoly, which is a closed system."

In the day-long conference, entitled The Future of Intellectual
Property in the Information Age, at Libertarian think tank The CATO
INSTITUTE, the phrase "open source" only came up a handful of times -
but the impact of copyright protection schemes on Open Source, Free
Software and ordinary consumers of online music, movies and written
materials was never far away from the debate. ...

... The "go to jail" panel addressed issues close to the hearts of
many in the Open Source community, including the DMCA-inspired
lawsuits against webmasters who posted the DeCSS code that allows
Linux users to decode and play DVDS, and the arrest in the United
States of visiting Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov for creating a
program that strips copy controls from e-books. ...

... Julie Cohen, a Georgetown University law professor, suggested that
the DMCA is especially problematic for Open Source developers because
although it allows some reverse engineering and encryption research,
it requires those developers to be "sufficiently credentialed," but
that doesn't protect the 15-year-old developing Open Source software
in his bedroom from a DMCA prosecution or lawsuit.

"Even if you think the Open Source movement is only an interesting
experiment, that's something to be troubled about," she said. ...

The CATO INSTITUTE is planning a book based on the conference.

MICROSOFT's new push in Washington [CNET]
By Declan McCullagh -- June 30, 2003

At the height of the U.S. government's antitrust pursuit of MICROSOFT,
Bill Gates and his execs were vigorously denouncing rivals Sun
Microsystems and Oracle for using the feds to try to cripple the
world's largest software company.

For a while, it sounded like Gates was channeling capitalist doyenne
Ayn Rand, saying in 1998 that the technology industry's successes were
due to lack of interference from Uncle Sam, and claiming that "the
government is still trying to slow MICROSOFT down."

MICROSOFT even launched a Web site,, through which
you could send a note to your member of Congress, sign up for a
get-your-hands-off-our-software newsletter or order "Freedom to
Innovate" ceramic mugs and T-shirts.

Well, that was then. Now MICROSOFT has given new marching orders to
its phalanx of lobbyists: Use the government to seek a competitive
advantage in the marketplace.

Hypocritical? Perhaps. Randian? Hardly. But all in all, entirely
unsurprising. While the old MICROSOFT would have been appalled, this
is becoming the standard way of doing business in Washington for the
new MICROSOFT. In fact, though the software giant may learn slowly, it
learns its lessons exceedingly well. ...

... So then why would MICROSOFT, typically no shrinking violet, not
want to stand up in public and say the same thing? At a conference on
this topic organized by the Progress and Freedom Forum last Friday,
MICROSOFT representatives refused to show up to speak.

"We did invite them, and they didn't show up," says Randy May, PFF's
director of communications policy studies. "Honestly, I don't know
why. I don't probe those things deeply...It is puzzling."

The CATO INSTITUTE, a free-market think tank that has been a close
MICROSOFT ally in the past, had been planning a similar event on "Net
neutrality." It also found that out of MICROSOFT's legions of
lobbyists, attorneys, engineers and public-policy specialists, not one
would show up and say publicly what the company has been telling the
FCC behind closed doors.

"I really worked hard to get them to show up, but they refused," says
Adam Thierer, Cato's director of telecommunications studies.
"Basically, they want to agitate behind the scenes for FCC
regulations, but they refuse to defend those actions publicly...They
have been so vocal about this; I figured they would be eager to defend
their position publicly. But thus far they have not been willing to do

Translation: MICROSOFT once was the poster child for a laissez-faire
approach to government regulation. Now that the company has abandoned
that approach, which tends to be a wise one, it's vulnerable to
charges of hypocrisy.

It's not as though MICROSOFT is a stranger to the CATO INSTITUTE. The
company gives the prominent think tank an undisclosed amount of cash
every year, and its lobbyists are frequent guests at the group's
conferences and panels. Gates himself showed up at Cato in 1999 for a
gala reception with Republican and libertarian luminaries. (Ed Crane,
Cato's president, proclaimed at the time: "Bill Gates is in a battle
with an entire department of the federal government that suffers from
a terrible case of the fatal conceit. We wish him well in that battle
and congratulate him on the incredible success story that MICROSOFT
Corp. is.")

But now MICROSOFT may be morphing into the same species of beltway
creature that it once condemned. "I've spent much of my time over the
last few years defending them against accusations that I thought were
silly about discrimination in the browser market," Thierer says. "This
is unusual since I consider them a friend and think they still do. ...

MICROSOFT vs. Euro-extortion -- March 28, 2004
By Alan Reynolds

... MICROSOFT is to be fined about $600 million, which is essentially
a foreign tax on the primarily American owners of MICROSOFT stock. The
EU also ordered MICROSOFT to share more information about Windows with
competitors, which amounts to compulsory licensing at best.

The commission claims the rising popularity of Windows software in
small business servers (as opposed to larger servers, dominated by
Linux) must be caused by an unfair advantage rather than a better
product or price. ...

Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the CATO INSTITUTE and a
nationally syndicated columnist. [WASHINGTON TIMES is Sun Myong Moon's

Results 1 - 9 of 9 from for

Main > Internet and Technology > Archive > March 2004
The Heritage Foundation > About Heritage > Departments > Board of

Town Hall is a front for Heritage Foundation, directed by Richard
SCAIFE; and Robert J. Herbold, Heritage Trustee Since 2003 ...
MICROSOFT's recently retired chief operating officer, ... He also
works part time for MICROSOFT as an executive vice president,
assisting in the government, industry and customer areas.

Time to Break up MS?
by Declan McCullagh -- Jan. 27, 2000 PT

The Washington-based PROGRESS AND FREEDOM FOUNDATION ... is somewhat
unusual among conservative think tanks because it has taken an
aggressive anti-MICROSOFT position during the trial. Other
conservative or libertarian groups, including the CATO INSTITUTE,
Citizens Against Government Waste, the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, and Americans for Tax Reform, have criticized the
Department of Justice lawsuit.

In November 1999, PFF published a defense of its position that said
that those other groups are also trying to undermine antitrust laws.

Robert Levy, an analyst at the free-market CATO INSTITUTE, said PFF's
proposal would cause more problems than it solves. The CATO INSTITUTE
receives some funds from MICROSOFT. ...

It can be safely stated that the division between CATO INSTITUTE (and
all) and PFF is phoney. There is a great deal of overlap in writers,
identical articles posted on multiple websites, by the same
funder-supported multi-headed hydra.


Results 1 - 27 of about 34 from WWW.FREE-MARKET.NET for

Jim DeLong is a senior fellow at The PROGRESS & FREEDOM FOUNDATION
where he directs the Center for the Study of Digital Property. Before
joining the Foundation, DeLong was senior fellow at the COMPETITIVE

Results 1 - 89 of about 149 from WWW.FREE-MARKET.NET for
"James V. DeLong" FREE-MARKET.NET.

Results 1 - 47 of about 112 from WWW.FREE-MARKET.NET for

Results 1 - 16 of about 96 for

Results 1 - 14 of about 30 for

Results 1 - 85 of about 720 for
"FREE-MARKET.NET" "Doug Bandow".

Results 1 - 100 of about 441 for

David H. Koch, Executive Vice President, KOCH INDUSTRIES, Inc.

CATO INSTITUTE, Officers and Executives:
Mr. David H. Koch

REASON FOUNDATION, Board of Directors (Co-Founder):
David H. Koch, New York, NY

CITIZENS FOR A SOUND ECONOMY Educational Foundation, Board of
David H. Koch, Chairman (Co-Founder)

ASPEN INSTITUTE, Board of Trustees:
David H. Koch

Charles G. Koch
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Mr. Koch is a director of INTRUST BANK, N.A. His non-business
activities include serving as chairman of the INSTITUTE FOR HUMANE

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY ... Charles G. Koch, chairman and chief
executive officer of KOCH INDUSTRIES Inc. will receive the Honorary
Doctor of Humane Letters.

Koch, chairman and chief executive officer of KOCH INDUSTRIES Inc., a
Wichita, Kansas- based company that owns a diverse group of companies
engaged in worldwide trading, investment, and operations, will receive
the Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters. Koch also serves as chairman of
the Board of Directors of the INSTITUTE FOR HUMANE STUDIES and is a
member of the board of directors of the MERCATUS CENTER at GEORGE
March 1998

James Buchanan Center Funded with $10 Million Gift

The creation of the James M. Buchanan Center for the Study of
Political Economy is underway, with a $10 million gift from the
Charles G. Koch Foundation.

Buchanan was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize for Economic Science in
1986 for his theory that applies economic analysis to political
decision making. He brought his Center for Study of Public Choice to
Mason in 1983 from Virginia Tech, where it had been based for 14

The new center incorporates the Center for Study of Public Choice and
the Center for Market Processes, and will continue its affiliation

The center will collaborate with the Department of Economics and the
School of Law. Robert Tollison, Duncan Black Professor of Economics
and general director of the Center for Study of Public Choice, serves
as the center's founding director. ...

... Richard Fink, president of the Charles G. Koch Foundation and
member of the university's Board of Visitors, added, "The Charles Koch
Foundation is always searching to support innovative programs that
help address the urgent social and economic problems facing society.
Few scholars and institutions have the courage and the capability to
make a difference," he continued. "Professors Buchanan and Robert
Tollison, and the James Buchanan Center at GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
meet both these criteria."

Fink enjoys a rich history with the university. He joined George Mason
from Rutgers University in 1981 as an assistant professor of
economics. He brought with him, and then served as director of, the
Center for Market Processes. Fink taught at Mason through 1984, when
he left to become president and chief executive officer of CITIZENS

Once that group was soundly established, he returned to George Mason
at the urging of then-president George Johnson, and senior vice
president Wade Gilley, to head a preliminary capital campaign
feasibility study as executive vice president for University
Advancement and Planning.

He has since served as vice president for government and public
affairs, senior vice president, and executive vice president and
member of the board of directors of KOCH INDUSTRIES. Fink serves on
the board of trustees of the Center for Study of Public Choice and the
Center for Market Processes, and is a member of the board of the
Progressive Policy Institute, associated with the Democratic
Leadership Council. He has been a member of the Consumer Advisory
Council of the Federal Reserve Board and a member of the President's
Commission on Privatization. ...

Richard Fink ... is the executive vice president and a member of the
board of directors of KOCH INDUSTRIES, Inc., in Washington, D.C. He
has a Ph.D. in Economics from New York University. A member of Mason's
economics faculty from 1980 to 1986, he was founder and director of
the Center for Market Processes. He also served as executive vice
president for advancement and planning in 1989-90.

Founder and president of CITIZENS FOR A SOUND ECONOMY in Washington,
D.C., Fink is also president of the Charles G. Koch and CLAUDE R.
LAMBE CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONs, and serves on a number of boards,
including the GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY Foundation, the Progressive
Policy Institute, and George Mason's INSTITUTE FOR HUMANE STUDIES and
Center for Study of Public Choice.
Published: Jun 01 2000

Think Tank Goes Political

The CITIZENS FOR A SOUND ECONOMY is also joining the U.S. Senate

It is a consumer-advocate conservative think-tank financed by
corporate donations. MICROSOFT, KOCH INDUSTRIES, Exxon Corp., General
Electric and Philip Morris all contribute to the group, which has an
income in excess of $15 million. C. Boyden Gray, White House counsel
in the Bush administration, is chairman of the board of trustees.

CSE is canvassing its 250,000 nationwide members for contributions to
fund-tailored voter guides, score cards and get-out-the-vote drives as
well as to television, radio and print advertisements opposing Hillary
Rodham Clinton. The Gannett News Service reports that CSE plans to
spend more than $1 million this election cycle in various states, with
New York chief among them. CSE's interest in the race might stem from
a few of its principal founders, David and Charles Koch, who are based
in Washington. The owners of KOCH INDUSTRIES, the nation's second
wealthiest privately owned business, the brothers were recently given
a $35 million federal fine in connection with 300 oil spills in six
states. As a part of the settlement agreement with the Environment
Protection Agency, KOCH INDUSTRIES wasn't required to admit fault, but
it is paying the most expensive civil fine ever levied under United
States environmental laws.

Americans For Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) ...

... AFPF Board of Directors

David Koch

David Koch is the Executive Vice President and a member of the board
of directors for KOCH INDUSTRIES, Inc., based in Wichita, Kansas. He
helped found Americans For Prosperity, and also serves on the board of
directors for the REASON FOUNDATION and the CATO INSTITUTE. David was
the Libertarian Party candidate for vice president of the United
States in 1980. He received his bachelor's and master's degree in
chemical engineering from MIT.

Wayne Gable

Wayne Gable currently serves as managing director of Federal Affairs
at KOCH INDUSTRIES, Inc. based in Wichita, Kansas. He worked at
CITIZENS FOR A SOUND ECONOMY from 1986 to 1991, serving as president
from 1989 to 1991. He has also served terms as the president of the
Tax Foundation, the Charles Koch Foundation, and the Center for Market

... AFP National Staff

Nancy Mitchell Pfotenhauer

Nancy Mitchell Pfotenhauer brings to Americans For Prosperity
Foundation (AFPF) extensive experience in directing and managing
non-profit advocacy organizations. She was tapped to lead AFPF in late
2003, and continues to serve as president and chief executive officer
of the Independent Women's Forum. She previously was director of the
Washington office of KOCH INDUSTRIES, the second largest privately
held company in the United States. At Koch, Nancy experienced
first-hand the legislative and regulatory labyrinth that faces
American companies and ultimately impacts consumers.

Nancy began her career in Washington, D.C. in 1987 as a senior
economist at the Republican National Committee and was promoted the
following year to chief economist. Selected by the transition team of
President-elect George H.W. Bush at age 24 ...

American Legislative Exchange Council, Board Members
Private Enterprise Board
* Michael K. Morgan, KOCH INDUSTRIES, Immediate Past Chairman


... CITIZENS FOR A SOUND ECONOMY (CSE) was founded in 1984 by J. M.
Humphries, and Charles and David Koch to oppose any taxation not
security related, and promote free market policies in Washington D.C.
Perhaps you have heard of Charles and David Koch of KOCH INDUSTRIES.
In early 2000, the company had a 97 count indictment against them for
knowingly dumping 91 metric tons of the carcinogen Benzene into the
atmosphere, then lying to cover it up. KOCH INDUSTRIES was a large
contributor to the Bush campaign, and when the current administration
took office, they found the counts dropped for a settlement on a
charge of 'falsifying documents.' ...

... Who's guiding CSE today? The Board of Directors are co-chaired by
former House Majority leader Dick Armey (R. TX), and C. Boyden Gray,
former counsel to George H. W. Bush. Gray is currently a partner at
the law firm Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, the law firm which defended
Xerox exec's against Securities and Exchange Commission charges that
they manipulated earnings to raise Xerox share prices(not exactly open
market policy). Other directors include: one Reagan appointee, a
former member of the Texas State Legislature, and the head of an
investment securities firm.

These are the men heading an organization which claims it recruits,
educates, and mobilizes armies of grassroots activists. None of these
men are the grassroots type. Their connections to money and power begs
the question, who benefits? Certainly, you and I see some benefit in
the few hundred dollars we can save on taxes, but at what cost to our
social and our natural environment? Without the government to oversee
huge corporations, who keeps checks on environmental issues, labor
issues, fraud issues, and the myriad other issues which we entrust to
it? Corporations focus on the bottom line. Everything else comes
second. Removing government's oversight ability fattens the pockets of
corporate insiders like those heading CSE. ...

... Instead, the panel is loaded with former lobbyists from industries
with the most to gain from relaxed air-pollution regulation.

There's Elizabeth Stolpe, who came to the White House Council on
Environmental Quality from KOCH INDUSTRIES, a Kansas oil company with
a long history of EPA entanglements. Just as an example, Koch paid a
$10 million fine in 2001 for deliberately releasing excessive amounts
of benzene, a known carcinogen, from a Texas refinery. ...

... For those who think that Ashcroft, despite his partisanship, is
going to have the integrity to uphold the law... consider this item,
which got virtually no media coverage at all until Michael Moore wrote
it up in his recent book. In September 2000, the federal government
brought a 97 count criminal indictment against a company called KOCH
INDUSTRIES, and four of its managers, for knowingly releasing 91 tons
of benzene -- a carciongenic volatile organic solvent -- into the air
and water, and covering it up. This was one of a series of repeated
environmental violations they'd been charged with, and paid fines for,
in the past. But they'd done something to correct their problem:
they'd contributed $800,000 to the George W. Bush campaign, and other
republican candidates.

When John Ashcroft took office as Attorney General, the government
dropped 88 of the 97 charges. Koch still faced fines of $352 million
for those nine. Then, two days before the trial, Ashcroft abruptly
settled for a plea bargain, in which Koch pled guilty to falsifying
documents, and all the major charges were dropped and the four
employees were freed from all prosecution. A small fine was paid, and
the original crime of dumping tons of carcinogen was cheerfully
forgotten. That's the kind of attorney general we have. ...

David H. Koch
Executive Vice President and a member of the board of directorsA
summary of Mr. Koch's non-profit board
* Member, Board of Directors, ASPEN INSTITUTE, Aspen, CO
* Member, Board of Directors, The CATO INSTITUTE, Washington, DC
* Member, Board of Directors, The REASON FOUNDATION, Santa Monica,

... Founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane and Charles G. Koch, its stated
mission is "to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow
consideration of the traditional American principles of limited
government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace" by seeking
greater involvement of the "lay public in questions of public policy
and the role of government." ...

... PHILIP MORRIS CEO Geoffrey Bible and media mogul RUPERT MURDOCH
have both served on the board of directors of Cato, which has numerous
ties to the Republican Party. However, Cato has sometimes differed
with Republican Party positions on specific issues, such as the 2003
decision by U.S. President George W. Bush to go to war with Iraq. Cato
has also criticized the 1998 settlement that many U.S. states signed
with the tobacco industry.[2] ...


LYNN S. TAYLOR is vice president and CFO of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE FOR
PUBLIC POLICY. She formerly served as ... managing director of the
Washington, D.C. Well-experienced in the management and the funding of
nonprofit organizations, Mrs. Taylor served on the boards of The

United Kingdom.

John Blundell is general director of Institute of Economic Affairs.
Following an education at King's School, Macclesfield and at the
London School of Economics, John Blundell headed the Press, Research
and Parliamentary Liaison Office at the Federation of Small Businesses
(1978-1982) and was a Lambeth Borough Cllr (1978-1982). From 1982 to
1993 he lived in the US where he was inter alia:

* President, INSTITUTE FOR HUMANE STUDIES (1988-1991)
* President, Congressional Schools of Virginia (1988-1992)
* President, Charles G Koch and Claude R Lambe Charitable
Foundation (1991-1993

He assumed his duties as General Director of the Institute of Economic
Affairs on January 1st 1993.

More Information
John has also served as ... founder director (1991-1993) INSTITUTE FOR
JUSTICE, Washington D.C.; International trustee (1988-1993) the FRASER
INSTITUTE, Vancouver, BC; and founder trustee of the BUCKEYE

He is a director of FAIRBRIDGE, director of ATLAS ECONOMIC RESEARCH
FOUNDATION (UK), Chairman of the executive committee of the Board of
and the INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC STUDIES (Europe) in Paris, France.

* HENRY LEPAGE, Institute Euro 92, France. ... He was Member of Board
MONT PELERIN SOCIETY from 1994 to 1998,

... The Clinton Administration charged KOCH INDUSTRIES with $352
million in pollution and hazardous waste violations. The Bush
Administration dropped the charges when KOCH INDUSTRIES agreed to
settle for $332 million less. Shortly after that, the Bush Justice
Department settled the lease-cheating case for $20 million, saving
KOCH INDUSTRIES another $194 million.[9]

The Kochs have given handsomely to the MERCATUS CENTER at GEORGE MASON
UNIVERSITY. So did Enron CEO Kenneth Lay. Wendy Gramm, Senator Phillip
Gramm's wife, was an ardent deregulator at Mercatus, and sat on
Enron's Board of Directors.[10] ...

* [9] As reported in "KOCH INDUSTRIES and the Pollution of the Bush
Whitehouse," at
* [10] See "Bull Market," by Garance Franke-Ruta, cover story in the
Washington City Paper, March 8-14, 2002

MERCATUS CENTER Board of Directors
* Tyler Cowen, General Director, MERCATUS CENTER
* Richard Fink, Executive Vice President, KOCH INDUSTRIES
* Charles Koch, Chairman and CEO, KOCH INDUSTRIES, Inc.

* Wayne Gable, Vice President, Government Affairs, KOCH INDUSTRIES,
Washington, DC

Date: 2/1/2001
An eight-member board of directors governs EKLP. Entergy Corp.'s board
chairman, Robert v.d. Luft, is chairman of the new company's board.
Other EKLP board members include Wayne Leonard, Entergy's CEO; Don
Hintz, Entergy's president; John Wilder, Entergy's CFO; Charles Koch,
president and COO, Sam Soliman, KOCH INDUSTRIES' CFO, and Cy Nobles,
senior vice president for KOCH INDUSTRIES.



Powered by Blogger