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.
Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tom Clarke who wrote (3507)2/4/2000 12:23:00 PM
From: The Philosopher  Respond to of 13056
 
But with all their lawyers, I'm surprised they don't know that sur-reply is not a proper legal term. If they meant sur reply they should have said so. Sort of exemplifies the whole core of this case -- that Microsoft uses terms (like monopoly, bundling, etc.) they way it wants to without recognizing that their usages are not legally justified.



To: Tom Clarke who wrote (3507)2/4/2000 6:14:00 PM
From: MeDroogies  Respond to of 13056
 
Charley, I'm the first person to oppose monopoly suits and the DOJ. But I've posted here before on this case. If you haven't had to deal with MSFT (I have) then you really don't have a basis for opinion. This is truly a company that uses illegal tactics to achieve its goals.
I've actually felt that RICO laws should be used against them, but RICO is rarely used against large and PR heavy companies.



To: Tom Clarke who wrote (3507)2/22/2000 8:01:00 PM
From: miraje  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 13056
 
I've been called for jury duty and I have a question about my rights as a juror. As a libertarian, I cannot, in good conscience, vote to convict anyone who is on trial for a victimless crime. My question is, should I state my views and be excused from serving in such a trial or would I be breaking any laws by maintaining silence and voting not to convict? How does one best protest laws that one views as irrational and invalid in a situation like this?

-JB