MESSAGE
| DATE | 2005-07-01 |
| FROM | From: "Inker, Evan"
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Following Bill Gates' Linux Attack Money
|
Following Bill Gates' Linux Attack Money
Posted by dave on Jun 29, 2005 1:08 PM
By LXer
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/38971/index.html
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 Monday's
article 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. 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.
What we did not discuss on Monday, 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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (Back to top)
Related stories:
Microsoft Getting Closer to the Fire
Is Microsoft Buying Anti-Virus Companies to Undermine Linux? You Decide
****************************************************************************
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual or entity named. If you are not the named addressee
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive
late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
This message is provided for informational purposes and should not
be construed as an invitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.
GAM operates in many jurisdictions and is
regulated or licensed in those jurisdictions as required.
****************************************************************************
|
|
