Reactions to DoJ/Microsoft Decision

by Bill Pena

Related link: http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/0,1551,46597,00.html



"What's good for GM is good for the country" used to stand for corporate hubris in the face of civic responsibility. Now that Microsoft has evaded a breakup, despite their guilt in various monopoly cases, many believe this adage stands for the Bush Administration's view of domestic policy, where corporations have usurped the rights of civilians:


"Economists and lawyers also felt that money came into the Justice Department's decision, but didn't think a payoff had occurred. They said that pursuing the case against Microsoft simply is impossible and unwise in the current economy.


"'Can you imagine the havoc that the stock market would descend to if Microsoft was forced to split? One of the few tech stocks that isn't dying in front of our eyes, and the government is going to kill it off? I don?t think so,' said broker Anthony Torres."


Should a corporation be shielded from prosecution once they've reached a certain level of marketshare? Does the possible economic effect on the nation of a Microsoft split outweigh the rights of all the other companies and their employees who've been wronged by Microsoft?


Was GM just ahead of its time?


Was GM just ahead of its time?