"In the Linux sphere, perhaps more than in most other
places, the word "freedom" is waved like a fly swatter. And there
are multiple, sometimes conflicting, definitions of the word, often
derived from one's political point of view, which in discussion of
the case of U.S. v. Microsoft has been overly distilled -- burnt,
really -- into freedom of people vs. freedom of companies. (Some,
mostly from countries where totalitarianism or the serious threat
of it resides in living memory, manage to lump government in on the
side of "big corporations.")
It is both more and less complicated than that. Entities, be
they companies, governments, or small groups of individuals or even
lone individuals, are capable of misbehavior. Laws exist to provide
relief from and in some cases punishment of the transgressors. They
also exist to guarantee and enforce the relative safety of entities
seeking to go about their business.
So it is not so remarkable that a noted conservative lawyer
would see perfect reason for action to be brought against Microsoft
for the transgressions we have all witnessed and experienced over
the years; what is remarkable is that people would find such a
position at all unusual. It is unfortunate that some conservative
commentators have sided with Microsoft, which to me is the same
kind of knee-jerk response that I find so repugnant when it comes
from the other side of the political spectrum. Part of the reason
it so repels me is that it leaves the impression that conservatives
hold the view that companies can do no wrong -- which is as foolish
as believing that individuals can do no wrong, or that government
can do no wrong. There's little justification in becoming yet
another political sheep in yet another political herd."
