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.
Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: alydar who wrote (62692)11/7/2001 5:14:09 PM
From: Bill Fischofer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74651
 
Re: Terminology

A felon is a person convicted of a felony, which is a category under criminal law. Antitrust is a branch of civil, not criminal, law. It is impossible for anyone to be a 'felon' as a result of a civil proceeding, regardless of the outcome of that proceeding.

You also seem confused about the legal status of corporations. A corporation is a legal entity distinct from any officer or employee of that corporation. A corporation can be held liable for any number of legal judgments and this has no effect on the personal legal liability of any officer or employee of that corporation.

Civil proceedings also focus on 'remedies', not 'punishments'.

Ignoring these basic legal realities does not advance any argument you wish to make on the subject.



To: alydar who wrote (62692)11/7/2001 5:21:15 PM
From: Charles Tutt  Respond to of 74651
 
To be a convicted felon, one must be found guilty of a felony crime in a criminal proceeding. That requires a determination of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." The government can also engage in civil proceedings, which carry a lower burden of proof. My understanding is that this case has been a civil action.

JMHO; no legal opinion implied.

Charles Tutt (TM)



To: alydar who wrote (62692)11/7/2001 7:33:32 PM
From: DJ  Respond to of 74651
 
This was a civil (not a criminal) case. Occasionally the DOJ will bring criminal charges under antitrust statutes (e.g., guys went to jail in the electrical price-fixing cases of the 1950s). The Sherman Act allows for either, but MSFT was never charged by the DOJ with criminal violations. So "guilty" is not the operative word. MSFT was found "liable" for violations, as I understand it at least. Others--correct me if I'm wrong.