Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Teflon who wrote (27509)	7/29/1999 4:41:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

I think the DOJ has a lot of NUTS* to allow this news to go public at this stage of the Trial.* It seems pretty clear from the USA Today story that the leak did not come from the DOJ. The significant line identifying the source is this: "Bankers at the two firms, who requested anonymity...". The leak was made by sleazy bankers. It strikes me that the DOJ is being responsible in trying to determine the financial effects of any remedy that might be proposed. Unfortunately, they contacted two banks with employees who clearly are not responsible. Later in the article, a quote from an lawyer indicates why Justice must do this kind of study: "If the government were to seek breakup as a remedy, it would face the argument that whatever may make sense as a matter of economic theory would not make sense as a business reality," says antitrust lawyer Richard Steuer, a partner at Kaye Scholer. It would face that argument, so it must determine whether it's a good argument or not. It would determine that by finding responsible firms who could provide a fair and balanced analysis of both the economic theory and business reality of this or any other proposed remedy. Unfortunately for DOJ, they approached two firms that are not responsible. Perhaps they should have known that a confidentiality agreement would mean nothing to those firms, but sometimes government lawyers just don't understand how sleazy and dishonest some business-folk can be.