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: Charles Tutt who wrote (41956)	4/13/2000 3:30:00 AM
From: bumn4qrtrs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

thats hilarious king...i guess we will just wait till the elections in november ...thanks for the good laugh...

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (41956)	4/13/2000 12:28:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Charles - re: I don't think it would be a good thing for judges to alter their interpretation of the law based on how they think the public will respond. While the law is not, and should not be, a "democratic process", obviously, the application of the law should benefit someone. In the present case, the purpose of the anti-trust statutes is to rein in the natural tendency of the capitalistic system to let the big get bigger and the small get smaller, to the eventual detriment of consumers. If the result of the application of the law is to actually harm consumers, then clearly, the intent of the law has miscarried. To say that the judge should act in a vacuum and not take into account the consequences of his actions on the very people the law was meant to protect seems pretty strange to me, especially when the result of that application is as profound as it appears to be in this case.