Nah, I don't think so.
Their litigation tactics are aggressive, but they have been willing, until the last few months, to bend over backwards to try to settle cases with the DOJ. I can recall some quotes from Chairman Bill to the effect that this whole thing was just a regulatory problem, and the issue was how to comply with the regulations. Compare that with their recent stance. We had the Consent Decree, and we almost had a settlement of this suit. Only at the last minute, it appears, did something change to stiffen their resolve.
I think the recent, more "muscular" (in the memorable phrase of Steve Forbes) response is the result of the realization that settling cases from a position of weakness, whether actual or perceived, does not work. Every time they give in, the DOJ just comes back for more. You and I call it "antitrust enforcement." For them, it's losing by Chinese water torture -- drip, drip, drip.
All of this is, as you call it, "rampant speculation," since I am not anywhere near knowledgeable about what they decide to do or why they do it. |
