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: sandeep who wrote (67361)	4/16/2002 1:46:25 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Not necessarily. I have not read the government's brief, but from the posts here it seems to be saying that "we [the federal government] reserve the right to argue in a subsequent case that states have no independent authority under federal anti-trust law, but we are not going to play trump now, because, your honor, IN THIS CASE, the objections that the states' have are MERITLESS." Tactically, this preserves the right of the federal government in subsequent posecutions unrelated to the present case, to solicit states' support to weaken the defendent, while preserving the federal government's possible right to control such future litigation by maintaining the power to later argue that states have no place in prosecuting federal anti trust law. cool...huh? :))