From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 05:20:10 +0800
To: John Young <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Why I Support Microsoft
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971221205217.00741904@pop.pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <v0310280eb0c3277a71ce@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 1:52 PM -0700 12/21/97, John Young wrote:
>The NYT reports today on the MS-DoJ case and notes that
>Microsoft has opposed the administration on several
>issues -- one being encryption -- which have captured the
>attention of publicity-seeking legislators as well.
>
>Another NYT report is on Microsoft's past neglect of major
>lobbying of the government and bigtime contribution to PACs,
>in contrast to other industrial giants, and that MS it is fast coming
>around on both counts now, with big bucks being poured into
>DC coffers of PR firms. (Could this beneficence be the incentive
>of $ieger and $habbar?)

It sure looks like Microsoft's "crime" is really that if failed to make
enough of the right campaign contributions. Perhaps it needs to hire
Charlie Trei to funnel some MS-bucks into the DNC coffers (and RNC coffers,
to cover both sides of the bet).

America as an extortion state. No suprise there.

By the way, in the last Clinton election, some Silicon Valley companies
were lavish in their support of the Democrats and Clinton. Among them,
Netscape and Apple.

Giving Clinton the cold shoulder was Intel. (Having worked for Craig
Barrett and Andy Grove, I can tell you that they despise the Democrats.)

Though not on the radar screen quite yet, I expect the real action will be
targetted against Intel. Particularly if it looks like the Merced will
effectively displace all mainframe and business-sized CPUs.


>The report notes that Microsoft is for the first time beginning to
>consider that it cannot continue to grow without coming to
>terms with the USG, the lesson all the giants have learned so
>well and are happy to see Bill Gates cut down to fit the mold.
>
>Now, was it not the case that not too long ago Microsoft was
>allegedly funding the strong crypto bills? And is a plea bargain
>in the works for MS sentence of worldwide GAK in Explorer?

I made a similar _speculative_ comment, a question, really, back in the
summer of 1993 (either that or the summer of '94...I'd have to check the
archives), when some comments came out of MS about their reasons for
agreeing to a kind of software key escrow.

(Tom Albertson, a paralegal for MS then, sent me a note alluding to some
kind of agreement...inasmuch as MS had made no public comments on SKE, this
seemed to be a sub rosa deal.)

I asked at that time if MS was not being pressured to sign the consent
decree and was not perhaps using support for SKE--then being pushed to
companies by NSA/NIST forces--as a way to buy some breathing room.

Certainly Bill Gates has spoken out forcefully against key escrow, so maybe
this explains the current hostility toward MS. Or part of it.

MS just isn't playing the game...they're not kicking in enough tribute to
the pols, and not playing ball on crypto.

--Tim May



The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."