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 (45368)	5/25/2000 6:37:00 PM
From: JC Jaros	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Do people here realize that the HEAD GUY of the appeals court (Judge Posner) was (past tense) hand picked by Judge PJ to mediate US -v- MSFT? -JCJ

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (45368)	5/25/2000 7:06:00 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Charles: Let me give you one example of how the "facts" as found by a lower court judge might be "heard" by an appellate court. Judge Jackson found that Microsoft conspired to divide the market in an illegal manner. He found this solely on the word of competitor. There was no other credible evidence. If this were, as a matter of law held to be conclusive, there would NEVER be another meeting by one company with another without CNBC being present. The propensity to fabricate evidence on the part of the competitor would be just too great, and too dangerous. A court of appeal might find that even if a discussion were true, without some affirmative act, it would not be enough. The concept here is like criminal conspiracy, there must be an affirmative act, otherwise the law would condone the concept of Thought Police. There is not one scintilla of evidence that any act whatsoever was taken by Microsoft in concert with Netscape, and in fact just the opposite occurred and was established in the trial court. This would be a conflict of evidence, at least and completely contraindicative, at worst. Further, in order for a corporation to conspire, as a matter of law, a court might find that that act must be taken as a corporate act, not the independent act of one of its employees. And although companies may be liable for the independent acts of their agents, they are typically not liable for the criminal acts of agents, unless those acts are approved or ratified by the corporation. It would be like your secretary getting you arrested for child porn. Its just not the law, nor should it be. Anyway, you get the drift. BTW, I think the MSFT attorneys made a HUGH mistake by not calling Cheryl as a witness. They could have just let her talk for a while,... and then just moved for summary judgment. :))))