Zie commentaar van hedenochtend hieronder:

Iedereen die wat presteert hoort in de gevangenis.

Over hetzelfde onderwerp ontvingen we een voorstel voor een nieuw actieplan van Todd Kruse van TCS.

We willen daar graag aan meedoen.

Daarom vragen we iedereen die ook mee wil doen, contact met ons op te nemen, zodat we eventuele plannen kunnen coördineren met TCS. Bij “reacties” of via info@libertarian.nl

Door storing op de LI site, kunnen we daar het voorstel in het Engels niet publiceren en doen we het hieronder.

Wij zijn benieuwd naar uw commentaar.

Todd Kruse proposes:

Good morning,

Hopefully you have seen the news stories regarding Mario Monti’s press conference set for today to announce the EU’s monetary fine and sanctions it plans to impose on Microsoft.

The article below is a great summary of the world view that I am advocating on this issue so whether you are interested in this issue from the perspective that this monetary fine is merely another form of taxation, the EU’s sanctions are a form of industrial planning that undermines the Lisbon Process, or another view that I have overlooked would you please let me know if your organization is interested in getting involved?

My objective this week is to generate the following types of activities by friends and allies of Microsoft who believe the market not regulators should determine outcomes:

1.) Press releases

2.) Op-eds and letters to the editor

3.) Mobilization of your membership to contact public officials

4.) Other ideas?

Your interest and activity is much appreciated. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions, suggestions, request for background materials/briefing documents, or a request for assistance and resources. Based on recent media reports this looks like it will be a multi-year legal battle so it is a good thing we are still young!!!

Best wishes and thank you,



As Mario Monti prepares to slap Microsoft with a €500 million fine — or as much as 10 percent of Microsoft’s global sales as permitted under European Union (EU) competition law — he should also consider the words of F.A. Hayek: “Every raid on the gains of monopoly, be it in the interest of particular groups or of the state as a whole, tends to create new vested interests which will help to bolster up monopoly.” Hayek believed that controlling monopolies further concentrated power into the hands of “a few.”

Although the long term effects of the American suit on the software industry are uncertain, the EU’s actions suggest that Hayek’s assertions, fomented over decades of watching Europe centralize its nation states, were right.

In the US, Microsoft’s competitors (Sun Microsystems, AOL, Red Hat and others) were mostly unsuccessful in their attempt to steal the Windows code.

The alternative settlement they proposed to the Justice Department’s suit would have made Windows software a virtual public utility.

Had they succeeded, the US government and entrepreneurs in the American legal industry would have unprecedented influence over the software industry.

Thankfully, Judge Kollar-Kotelly saw through this attempt of corporate thievery, reprimanding the states for seeking punishments outside the bounds of an earlier decision in the Court of Appeals. Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s sole responsibility was to approve any settlement between Microsoft and the government based on the earlier decision lest the court hand out its own punishment.

The final settlement approved by the judge stopped Microsoft from making exclusionary contracts with computer manufacturers that required exclusive use of its “middleware” products.

Middleware, which includes the media player now under scrutiny by the EU government, escapes clear definition, but it is generally associated with software programs that help operating systems use the Internet. Microsoft’s enemies largely failed in the US, but the damage to America’s fragile legal institutions, which were never designed to reorganize technical industries, has yet to be determined.

Depending on how many suits are yet to come, intellectual property may need clearer definition so courts don’t get bogged down. Unfortunately, the suits against Microsoft may have inadvertently created a new corporate legal weapon for international technology companies.

Should a company now feel justified in crafting lawsuits with the sole purpose of destroying competitors’ intellectual property?

In his landmark work “The Road to Serfdom,” F.A. Hayek warned that “A system in which large privileged groups profit from the gains of monopoly may be politically much more dangerous, and monopoly in such a system certainly is much more powerful, than in one where the profits go to a limited few.”

If anything, the twisted result of the suit against Microsoft in the States was the politicization of the American software industry.

The EU’s far more chilling action against Microsoft will send a clear message to the world that the intellectual property of any so-called corporate giant is now fair game. EU consumers will feel the consequences if Brussels starts an international feeding frenzy over intellectual property.

Helmut Schmidt, the former Chancellor of Germany, once said that all social diseases come from America. But Europe has thus far remained immune to the “legal lottery” mentality so pervasive in America. Mario Monti should consider the greater threat of bringing this legal, economic and social disease to his shores.


Joel Bucher is Editor of Laissez Faire, a publication of the Institute for Free Enterprise in Berlin, Germany.


  1. Your objective this week is to generate some types of activities by friends and allies of Microsoft who believe the market not regulators should determine outcomes.

    The government, here the EU-Commission, believes it can “rectify” outcomes and it has the weapon of the law on its side. You need to change the law first but this will not succeed if you don’t change people’s ideas (see this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/… of the BBC of the UK government which says that consumer groups have applauded the European Commission’s decision to hit Microsoft with a 497m euro fine and force it to disclose software secrets.)

    You are writing that based on recent media reports this looks like it will be a multi-year legal battle. Sorry, although I said that you need to change the law first, this is NOT a legal battle.

    Just like the question who (if anybody or anything except the invisible hand) should determine the outcome of market processes, it is a PHILOSOPHICAL problem. (take this from this lunatic who has 20 years of experience of pamphleteering and writing columns in newspapers against the EEC’s, now the EU’s, competition policy)

    What’s philosophy? Good question.

    For Aristotle, philosophy is a science which inquires into the ultimate reasons, causes and principles of all things IN THE LIGHT OF HUMAN REASON ALONE (Ivo’s remark: thus not in the light of the existing laws)

    "There is a science which investigates being as being and the attributes which belong to this in virtue of its own nature. Now this is not the same as any of the so-called special sciences; for none of these others treats universally of being as being. They cut off a part of being and investigate the attribute of this part; this is what the mathematical sciences for instance do. Now since we are seeking the first principles and the highest causes, clearly there must be some thing to which they belong in virtue of its own nature." (Aristotle, “Metaphysics”, Book IV, Chapter 1)

    As Alan Greenspan wrote in Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal”

    “The world of antitrust is reminiscent of Alice’s Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn’t, simultaneously. It is a world in which competition is lauded as the basic axiom and guiding principle, yet "too much" competition is condemned as "cutthroat." It is a world in which actions designed to limit competition are branded as criminal when taken by businessmen, yet praised as "enlightened" when initiated by the government. It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge’s verdict — after the fact.”

    When Aristotle speaks about not cutting off a part of being and when Alan speaks about distinguishing actions as to their initiator (thus cutting some people off from others), they have, I think, the same thing in mind

    I need to think this over. Maybe after 20 years, I could change the goal for my gun against the EU. (To paraphrase another lunatic: “It’s the philosophy, stupid!) Please keep us informed of your efforts. I would be glad to offer any help I can. (The first thing would be to think over what I am writing in this message. – I wanted to brainstorm as soon as possible – and I don’t find your e-mail address)

    Ivo Cerckel



  2. Zolang mijn post bij usagold niet geschrapt wordt, staat hij er nog.


    The Invisible Hand (03/24/04; 17:06:48MT – usagold.com msg#: 119032)

    Sir Alan, stand up now!


    In Ayn Rand’s “Capitalism; the Unknown Ideal, there are two articles by Alan Greenspan.

    One is his “Gold and Economic Freedom” article. The other is an article on antitrust.

    Here’s something written by yours truly on Another site concerning the EU’s sanctions against Microsoft. (the first lines are in Dutch, the rest in English)

    Perhaps, the Microsoft sanctions will now give to Greenspan the opportunity to shrug and

    to defend gold and anti-antitrust.

    Ideas on how to link both subjects, except through the person of Sir Alan, very welcome.


    Your objective this week is to generate some types of activities by friends and allies of Microsoft who believe the market not regulators should determine outcomes.


Comments are closed.