SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: blankmind who wrote (25985)7/13/1999 11:33:00 PM
From: RTev  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74651
 
basically, I'm saying, that this case never should've gotten this far - it's totally without merit

Hey. For once I agree with you (if only on one of three points). Based on the limited news coming out of this trial, it seems astounding that it got past summary judgment. One can find an attorney who will say just about anything on any particular case, but the guy who released a press release earlier seems to have nailed this one when he called it "an attempt by Bristol to play the American litigation lottery."

Unfortunately, juries in antitrust cases can sometimes come out with bizarre decisions.

On the other trial front, ZDNet offers this summary of DOJ antitrust enforcement under Joel Klein:
zdnet.com

Some highlights:
Antitrust actions under Klein have been "extremely 
aggressive" when it comes to the high tech sector, said
Breton Bocchieri, an intellectual property and high
tech lawyer with Arter & Hadden in California. That
stance is "neither good or bad, it's a fact of life,"
Bocchieri said.

Such aggressive enforcement actions are needed,
Bocchieri said, adding the "process of implementation
needs to reflect the modern paradigm."
...
Taking aim at the high tech sector is really a "chicken
and egg problem," said Andrew Gavil, an antitrust law
professor at the Howard University Law School. The
Department of Justice is "aggressively watching a sector
of the economy that (a) is generating a lot of wealth
and economic progress; and (b) is exhibiting signs of
stress through aggressive behavior," Gavil said.

Underlying the DoJ's aggressive look at high tech,
Gavil said, are market forces that are "a rarity in our
far-flung economy: Genuinely aggressive activity by
genuinely dominant firms."


And one more that will be more palatable to most of those here:

The push into the high tech sector can be linked 
to the underlying philosophy of the Clinton
administration, says Robert Levy, a senior fellow with
the Washington-based Cato Institute, a Libertarian
think tank. Levy characterizes the administration as
having "a predisposition toward government solutions...
they are fundamentally distrustful of the free market
to police itself."

Levy also believes the DOJ's interest in high tech is
being driven by disaffected competitors.


But then...

...Arguing against the implication that his 
division acts as a front man for disgruntled companies,
Klein says the "cynics among us can always try and
harmonize events with a theory," but the fact is, some
cases "are meritorious and some are not."


And in the future?

What other high tech areas might be red flags for 
antitrust enforcement action? One potential target
could be the aggregation of companies and technologies
being cobbled together by Internet portals, such as
America Online and Yahoo!. AOL, in particular, has
made no secret of the fact that it intends to compete
head on with Microsoft for the heart and soul of
Internet surfers with its so-called "AOL Everywhere"
strategy.
...
These alliances are in the spirit of cooperation,
which is not an illegal activity. However, if they are
doing so with the intent of monopolizing a sector of
the industry, that does breach antitrust laws. It also
puts Klein in a quandary: he would have to prosecute
some of the very companies his lawyers relied on as
key witnesses during the Microsoft trial.