15
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
As [[Jacob Sullum]], an opponent of all victimless crime economic and social laws, noted in a syndicated column, the ''Times'' story was published the exact Sunday before the day of the closing arguments in the Microsoft case[http://reason.com/sullum/110399.shtml]. Sullum stated that, "The story, which appeared just as closing arguments were being made in the Microsoft case, was based on purloined documents provided by 'a Microsoft adversary associated with the computer industry.'" Moreover, even David Callahan admitted in an attack article in the ''Washington Monthly'' that, "Given their world view, Theroux and his colleagues at the Independent Institute would probably be bashing the government prosecutors after Microsoft regardless of who gave them money."[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9911.callahan.think.html] In response, Sullum then noted that, "This is no small concession, since Callahan’s argument hinges on the idea that corporate funding influences the conclusions that think tanks reach." Inded, as Theroux noted, "Our restriction on ''all'' funding is that it is non-contractual, meaning that the funding sources have no say in the research and how the funding is spent. All of the Institute’s work is based on one and only one criterion, peer-reviewed science." He further stated that, "There is absolutely ''no'' evidence that ''any'' aspect of the Institute’s research has ever been affected one way or the other by whether Microsoft or anyone was or was not a supporter of The Independent Institute. Furthermore, there is ''no'' evidence that ''any'' of the Institute’s findings are incorrect."
Theroux pursued the matter further, insisting that the ''Times'' piece's admission that another computer firm was behind the story was indeed the case. Nine months later, front-page articles appeared in the ''Wall Street Journal'' and ''New York Times'' confirming Theroux's claim, reporting that when finally cornered, Oracle Corporation CEO Larry Ellison had admitted to launching a clandestine campaign to try to discredit TII’s work[http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,37278,00.html]. Oracle had hired Terry Lenzner's CIA-connected Investigative Group International (IGI), fronting as "Upstream Technologies," to as Theroux noted, "employ back-alley tactics, subterfuge, and disinformation in order to achieve its aims. For an organization that uses IGI, 'Upstream Technologies', and others to front its operations, we fail to see how Oracle has a leg to stand on. And, since Oracle grew out of a contract with the CIA and is proudly named after that CIA project, what does this say about the corporate culture at Oracle? We challenge Oracle’s executives--and renew our invitation to Assistant Attorney General Joel Klein--to publicly debate the central economic, legal, and social issues of antitrust, competition, and high technology." Theroux further noted that six months prior to the ''Times'' article and threee months prior to the ads, he had sent Ellison a copy of the manuscript for the then forthcoming TII book, ''Winners, Losers & Microsoft''[http://www.independent.org/publications/books/book_summary.asp?bookID=50], asking for comments. When published in that late spring, the book, which was based on TII's research from years earlier, critiqued "network externality" theory and received universal, glowing reviews in ''The Economist'', ''Wall Street Journal'', ''Wired'', ''Upside'', ''Financial Times'', and elsewhere. Theroux added that clearly Ellison's response was that since he could not refute TII's analysis and well knew that TII could ''not'' be bought by anyone, his choice was to try to kick up enough dust to cloud the issue and prevent any real public discussion when the case was reaching its climax. (Theroux also noted that at no time during the antitrust case did Microsoft use ''any'' of TII's analysis.) However, despite the confusion that resulted from Oracle's campaign, TII's work remains unrefuted today.
== Funding ==
