THE TWO BILLS: UNLIKELY HEROES OF DEMOCRACY By David A. Chodack A few weeks ago, the Chronicle chose to reprint part of an editorial by the editor of Mother Jones magazine. It attacked Microsoft as the Devil's own corporation and Bill Gates as the Devil himself, a high tech Pied Piper leading us all astray. Maybe it's because I'm an English teacher that I found the piece to be semi-coherent at best, but it seemed to bear more than a slight similarity to the ant-technology ravings of the Unabomber. And, to the government's recent case against Microsoft, a  lot of hype and rhetoric, but not much substance. Maybe Bill Gates is a monopolist and a greedy megalomaniac. Maybe he  intends to take over the world.. Perhaps, giving away Microsoft's Browser for free with  Windows 95 is the first step towards world domination. I don't know. I've never met or spoken to  Bill Gates, so it's not as if he  calls me and tells me all his plans, his hopes and dreams of universal conquest. For all I know, maybe he is planning to implant tiny Windows 2000 chips into all our brains, making us all loyal disciples of the Microsoft religion and thereby crushing the competition once and for all. This is possible. But where's the hard evidence? So far, no one has presented any. The government claims that Microsoft is using its dominance in the field of operating systems, to achieve similar dominance in the Internet browser market (currently dominated by Netscape Communications) The government insists that Microsoft is forcing computer  manufacturers and retailers to include the Microsoft Browser  (at no additional cost)  if they want to offer Windows 95. The government demands that Microsoft offer a version of Windows 95 with the browser removed. Is there a demand for this from computer manufacturers, retailers or consumers? Apparently not, but that doesn't deter the government.  The major computer manufacturers say they don't want Windows 95 with the Internet Browser removed. They say they don't see any benefit to that and neither do their customers. Consumers want the free Microsoft Browser. Bill Gates obviously knew this. He didn't get to be the world's richest man by being stupid, or out of touch with his biggest clients and their needs and desires.  Therefore, he  knew that nothing much was going to change as a result of the government's intervention. The "smart" thing would have been to comply with the government's wishes and agree to  offer a Browser-less version of Windows 95, which almost no one would order anyway. But Microsoft did not do the 'smart" thing. It resisted the government's intrusion into its business and so the government appointed a "computer legal expert" to decide whether or not Microsoft is really doing anything wrong. Of course this "computer legal expert" just happens to be a friend of Netscape's chief lobbyist and an anti-Microsoft zealot. But, he's a completely objective friend of Netscape and anti-Microsoft zealot who will have no trouble giving an unbiased opinion. (As a layman with no legal training, I'm personally amazed and outraged that an Appeals Court apparently didn't buy this reasoning) So, we wound up with government prosecutors spending millions of dollars of our money and Bill Gates spending millions of dollars of Microsoft's money (and being slammed for making a "public relations mistake") as they fought over an issue that few people outside of Netscape shareholders had any interest in. Microsoft finally gave in and agreed to the government's demands. But, a precedent had been established. If the government lawyers could have intimidated the world's richest man and one of the world's most successful corporations, where would they stop? Who couldn't they intimidate? The President of the United States? For years now, we have had to listen to all sorts of accusations about Bill Clinton, both as a man and as a President. He's a Philanderer. He's a thief. He's even a murderer who had Vincent Foster -- and other people -- killed. His wife is vicious and power hungry. She  is a lesbian and that's why he runs around. The list goes on and on. As a lawyer and the husband of a lawyer, Bill Clinton had to know that that list would keep growing once Paula Jones first surfaced. Guilty or innocent, he would have been "smart" to pay her off and shut her up. But like Bill Gates, Bill Clinton decided to fight rather than give in and he has also had to pay the price, (and so have we) in the form of  Kenneth Starr, the  special prosecutor who just happens to be a long-time right wing Republican, anti-Clinton zealot (but of course, a completely objective and professional right wing Republican, anti-Clinton zealot, totally committed to judging the case on the facts and seeking out the truth)  So, once again, we have a Federal prosecutor freely spending our tax money prosecuting a case that most of the American public could care less about. Meanwhile, by defending themselves and standing up to the government prosecutors, both Bill Gates and Bill Clinton struck a blow for Democracy, for Freedom from Persecution, not only for themselves, but for all of us Little People, too. That's right. Next time it could be you or me. If you don't believe it, ask Monica Lewinsky -- a 24 year old nobody  until Kenneth Starr decided to get his hooks into her by wiring her friend Linda Tripp. Ask her mother, her old friends and all the White House interns and lower level employees and  the Secret Service agents who have been subpoenaed. Now, at this point, let me say that not only am I not particularly political, but  I am not necessarily a personal fan of either Bill Clinton or Bill Gates. they're charged with. And more. But so far, no one has come close to proving it. Personally, I don't think Mr. Clinton is doing a wonderful job overall as President and if the election were held today, I wouldn't vote for him. But, I wouldn't vote to have him thrown out of office before his term is over. Not on the basis of what he's charged with, let alone what's been proven so far. I don't know that I would vote for Mr. Gates either, if he were running for public office, but that doesn't mean that I object to him giving the Microsoft Browser away for free And it certainly doesn't mean that I think the government should spend millions of dollars to force him to stop doing it. I did vote for Clinton - once - and I use Microsoft products and have generally been satisfied with them, but I don't know either Bill Gates or Bill Clinton personally. Therefore, I can't say for sure that they are both good, honest upstanding citizens in every way. For all I know, they may both be guilty of everything they are charged with. And more. But so far, no one has come up with any solid evidence and until someone does, I say "Thank you" to both Bills, for standing up to a system that is out of control BACK TO SOCIAL COMMENTARY PAGE HOME PAGE