depends what you mean – global quasi-legal systems are becoming increasingly relevant. and under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, corporations essentially get personhood – the right to sue governments for “appropriation” of profits thru regulations. it’s a mutation of the protection granted by the US constitution against government misappropriation of personal assets. similar rights are enshrined in other trade deals and generally recognized by the WTO.

and now this. i can’t imagine any current context under which microsoft would win this case. for now. but… slippery slope, anyone?

To: Chairman, FCC
From: Legal and Cultural Advisor to Chairman, FCC
Re: Alleged inappropriate remarks on public property (United States Senate)

Statement of question:
You have asked whether the Vice President is subject to fine by the FCC
for uttering an expletive on the Senate floor. You have also asked “how
the h-e-doubletoothpicks” you can explain the difference between Howard
Stern and the Honorable Richard Cheney, if asked.
Summary of Answer:
The Vice President is a fine man, indeed, and his hair is much, much
shorter in length and smaller in volume than Mr. Stern’s.
Discussion
It is important to note certain key facts that naturally have been left
out of the left-wing media reports of the Vice
President’s alleged sexual innuendo, and that also modify the Vice President’s alleged “admission” of such remark.
First, the Vice President realized that Senator Leahy was about to
unleash a massive and scurrilous attack on the Vice President’s
patriotism, and therefore the Vice President’s suggestion was in the
nature of pre-emptive strike. The success of his merely verbal assault
justified its use.
Second, at no time did the Vice President take off his bustier, nor did
Senator Leahy attempt to remove the Vice President’s bustier. Indeed,
the Vice President is a manly man, and there can be no reasonable
comparison of him to Janet Jackson. You asked about analogies to Howard
Stern, but it’s easier to make this point.

With respect to the law, it is true that the Vice President has gone on
Fox television in order to un-deny the incident, and now unfair commentators
in other (jealous) media claim some analogy between his alleged obscenity and Mr. Stern’s. However, as the Vice President explained in a fair and balanced manner, his utterance made him feel good, as the co-leader of the Administration in charge of immediate and long-term decisions. Mr. Stern, however, has often said that he does not feel good about the Administration. So this is, in legal parlance, a “big difference” between the Vice President and Mr. Stern.

In any event, the Vice President’s suggestion as to a contorted posture
that might be assumed by the Senator was plainly not an obscenity but merely an
explanation of a loophole in the Defense of Marriage Act.

Furthermore, Howard Stern opposes the President. Senator Leahy opposes
the President. There is therefore a connection between Stern and Leahy.
Pointing out that connection is the job of any fair and balanced Commission.
Consequently, it is your duty to alert the nation to the fact that
Howard Stern and Democratic Senators are in an alliance to undermine
America. Therefore, if asked about the false analogy between the Vice
President’s (locker-room) humor and Mr. Stern’s (liberal) filth, you should say that
logic compels you to fine all Democrats to the limit of their campaign funds and to ban them from access to the airwaves. Precedent for that action is found in the self-regulatory proscription of accurate information on Fox News.

It seems every time I reconcile myself to using their products (we are pretty strictly a Windows shop at work and I don’t have a choice), Microsoft does something like this! Along with detestable software, these unconscionable actions are becoming synonymous with the Microsoft name! Ironically, in taking action against Amadeu, Microsoft insured that his words reached a larger audience while further anathematizing themselves.

American corporate greed doesn’t surprise me anymore. However, I would expect a basic understanding of public relations to suffice in a case like this, where morals are lacking. Even if MS wins it’ll be a Pyrrhic victory, costing them more through bad publicity, increased criticism, and as someone has already pointed out, increased migration to other software.

I do expect better than this. (at least from any other company)! We should particularly expect it from businesses based in wealthy and free societies.

You know, America opens its markets to a variety of cheap products from foreign countries that occasionally displace our workers. Yet nobody in this forum is willing to call any of the people running those foreign companies drug dealers. Where is the tool business in the United States? The camera business? The garment business? Are those in the rest of the world to whom we allow access to our markets and our store shelves as bad as this Brazilian claims Microsoft is? For providing operating systems to schools in Brazil?

The Microsoft employee has a point, though. It’s hard to be generous and defensive at the same time. Unfortunately, a lot of the people here on the Lessig blog want Microsoft to be neither – they want them to be gone.