On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Bob Bell wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 06:34:03PM -0400, Jeffry Smith
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> > > Don't forget, too, that we've got a lot of Republicans in office right now,
> > > and thanks to Bill "Screw Around" Clinton, the Democrats have likely lost the
> > > White House, too. And Republicans have never been great fans of anti-trust
> > > law.
> >
> > I beg to differ - Teddy Roosevelt was one of the biggest backers of
> > anti-trust. Of course he was also an environmentalist. No one can
> > claim the republicans can't change their tune.
>
> I've been told in general Benjamin's statement is true, and have
> heard before that, if elected president, Bush might consider (no
> definites) dropping the case (disappointing to me as a Republican).
> However, I've also seen it noted that the Judge Jackson is a
> traditional, Reagan-appointed Republican.
Actually, I'm not arguing about our current crop of republicans, just
the last sentence. The republican party started with politics much
more like the current democrats, who were more like the current
republicans. Remember - the republicans were the first to support
civil rights (specifically, the northerners elected them to oppose
slavery, which was an underlying cause of the Civil War, with the 1st
republican president (Abe Lincoln) in charge (and yes, I realize the
Civil War was truly fought over the right of states to secede from the
union)
>
> > Now, they could go for dropping prosecution. However, note that the
> > IBM & AT&T trials lasted for over 10 years each, through multiple
> > administrations. It's hard to ignore a conviction.
>
> That's been my understanding: that the President could tell the
> DOJ to back off. I don't know if such a command has to be followed,
> although the President can consider that when appointing an
> Attorney-General.
Yep, he can consider it. Don't underestimate the power of the
"beaurocracy" or career civil service. It was actually put in place
as a check on political power (most jobs used to be appointed, with
lots of favoritism & nepotism)
>
> Since MS has been found guilty already, does dropping the case
> really work? I suppose that the DOJ could just give in on appeal, and
> MS would win the appeal?
Depends on where they give in on the appeal. Certainly if the DoJ
drops their objections, the MS side is strengthened, but again there
are the states.
>
> > Final aspect is that there are state attorneys general also suing. Sure,
> > MS buys off DoJ. Now there's these guys. Oh, by the way. They've
> > been found guilty. This opens it to private lawsuits.
>
> The state attorneys are definitely something to still consider,
> though I question whether they will all stick together if the feds
> back out.
>
Remember, all politics is local. Depends on what the state voters
want, & how much political heat / capital is generated by dropping /
keeping the lawsuits. And don't neglect the power of the private
suits. That may be the bigger issue. Now that the finding of fact is
that they are a monopoly, the private suits don't have to prove it,
only damages. Also, they are now eligible for triple damages. MS may
have a lot of money in the bank, but it can disappear quickly,
especially if juries decide "oh they're rich, they can afford it,"
plus stock options MS has taken to buy stock (anticipating the price
would go up, thus they buy cheap, to use for the stock options they
grant employees, and take a tax write off). Now,
the people selling that stock to MS are very interested, because they
stand to make money. And MS can't get the tax write-off, because
people won't exercise their options. Some analysis I've seen indicate
MS makes up to half it's profits via stock manipulation (legal tricks,
but those who live by the manipulation .. .)
jeff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Smith Technical Sales Consultant Mission Critical Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:603.930.9379 fax:978.446.9470
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought for today: Always try to do things in chronological order; it's less
confusing that way.
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
