Very substantial demonstration of legal knowledge there, John. You and your particular interpretation of her Aynness are the very embodiment of reason, and anybody who disagrees is arguing from "feelings and emotions", no doubt. DOJ case is unreasonable in all aspects? As the totally objective and impartial observer, Microsoft defense attorney Warden "demonstarted"? We'll see. This isn't the consent decree case anymore, and it isn't just Netscape that's at issue here.
As for IBD editorials, I couldn't say, have they been given legal standing by some new law I'm unaware of? I prefer the editorial in Bill's former favorite rag, The Economist
Yet the case against Microsoft remains compelling. The government will describe in detail a pattern of “predatory and exclusionary” practices illegally carried out over many years, often aimed at intimidating partners as much as competitors. At the very least, Microsoft's belief that other firms do the things it is accused of demonstrates a refusal to concede that, under antitrust law, monopolists should be whiter than white.
As you could see if you chose to review their coverage at economist.com , Bill himself tried to pull the old "just the same as the consent decree case" line on them, they weren't impressed. But what the heck, may as well give it another shot, eh John? If it's the best argument you have, why not? |
