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 (47044)	6/20/2000 3:05:00 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

". BTW, as James Bowers points out, Alcoa was a 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals case, written by the great Judge Learned Hand, not a Supreme Court case." But you told us that the Alcoa case was the controlling authority. Now your telling me it was a Court of Appeals decision, not binding in the DC circuit, and more importantly not a Supreme Court decision. ?!? Now you are telling us that a mere monopoly is illegal. Insitu, that is not the law, and you should know that. Then you say that you don't need exclusivity to have a monopoly under the anti trust laws. You must first define a market. That is one thing that the DOJ did not do for Judge Jackson. For instance, you have a "monopoly" on all posts on on SI under the Name "Insitu". I assume you do not voluntarily let others post under your name. This is not illegal. JD has the right to exclude you from his SI, he has a monopoly over his "ignore" button, that is not illegal. Windows is an invention, not a natural resource; it is protectable, it is a legal monopoly. There must be something more, there must be a resolution of freedom to innovate (copyright law) and illegal business practices. That is what the court of appeals dealt with in MSII. That is why the concept of harm to the consumer is so important. That is what the DOJ did not prove. That is what they want MS to stipulate to in any settlement they have offered that MS agree that it harmed the consumer. THAT is a DOJ dirty trick. The rest is polemic legerdemain. READ THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION IN MSII. Let me know what you think. Duke