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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: QwikSand who wrote (47691)	3/8/2002 1:37:15 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

QS - this is exactly what the DOJ did years ago in the first consent decree. After pursuing the case, they came to a settlement that they thought was the best they could get. The judge wanted to go for more. The DOJ then submitted a brief, with MSFT, their former opponent, saying that the consent decree should go through as it was the best that could be achieved and going further risked not even getting what they had at that point. This looks like the same thing. They are not arguing for MSFT as much as against those who want to abandon the current deal and try for more. BTW I happen to think that in the first case, the judge was right - MSFT could, and did, ignore the spirit of the decree while following the letter in what some called "malicious compliance", which is exactly what the judge feared.