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: Insitu who wrote (44211)	5/3/2000 2:55:00 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

"Can you name any judicial decisions that support your statement. I haven't found any. " Are you the same guy who miscited that discovery case about a week ago for the test of rules for reversal on appeal from a judgment on antitrust by the DC? If so, it doesn't surprise me that you can't find a case. If you need some cases, try the US Supreme Court cases cited in the Court of Appeals decision for the District of Columbia Circuit, the last time they reversed an order of this judge in this matter.

To: Insitu who wrote (44211)	5/3/2000 6:06:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Under our current law I don't think it matters how the monopoly is achieved. It only matters that the monopolist act differently once the monopoly is achieved. So, a successful company has to stop doing what made it successful after it hits a point, determined in retrospect during a court case, where it is a monopoly. In other words, a company's actions suddenly become illegal without any change in action or intent until those actions are suddenly declared in the future as having been illegal in the past, at which point the company can't retroactively undo them. Additionally, there's no way to know how your market will be defined in said case so while you may be fighting for your life in a wider market you can be found to be a monopolist in a much narrower market and now you're prohibited from aggressive competition in the wider market, too. Sounds fair to me. I still say that if a law of this nature were being applied to a natural person instead of a corporation then the ACLU would be all over this.