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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wbmw who wrote (241450)	9/29/2007 10:10:12 AM
From: gvatty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Federal Jury Instruction PURPOSE OF SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT The purpose of the Sherman Antitrust Act is to preserve or advance our system of free, competitive enterprise, and to encourage to the fullest extent practicable, free and open competition in the market place; all to the end that the consuming public may receive better goods and services at the lowest obtainable cost. So, any unreasonable interference, by contract or combination or conspiracy, with the ordinary, usual and freely-competitive pricing or distribution system of the open market in interstate trade and commerce, constitutes an unreasonable restraint of interstate trade, and is in itself unlawful, and, if knowingly done, is a federal offense under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Sources: Judge Lake's instructions in United States v. Moore Supply Co., Crim. No. H-94-017 (S.D. Tex. filed Aug. 15, 1994) (antitrust case involving price-fixing). Judge Hittner's instructions in United States v. Johnson, Crim. No. H-92-152 (S.D. Tex. filed Mar. 10, 1994), aff'd, 68 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 1995) (antitrust case involving bid-rigging). Devitt, Blackmar & O'Malley, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, § 51A.03 (1992 Supp.) (modified). usdoj.gov

To: wbmw who wrote (241450)	9/29/2007 11:51:04 AM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

I don't need to prove something that is fundamentally a root of the modern legal system. If it's so fundamental, it should be easy to find some support for the idea. So far you've given me nothing, while I've provided links that support my position. Links that authoritatively, directly contradict your idea. en.wikipedia.org for instance. "Protecting the interests of consumers (consumer welfare) and ensuring that enterpreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are often treated as important objectives." Now, others have too. You are simply wrong. What I wish to argue is the spirit of the law, and the fact that it's designed to support the consumer, and that second order concepts like "competition" may be idealized by a few opinionated people, but it's not what the laws were designed to protect. "A few opinionated people?" You mean, like, everyone but you? Your tactic of discrediting anyone and everyone who doesn't support your preconceptoins is getting tiresome. The MIT economics professor I quoted was an expert witness in the MS antitrust case, which the prosecution won. Who are you? I know exactly why you're pushing this argument so hard, BTW; To support your simpleton "lower prices are always good" argument, i.e. Intel's rebates save consumers money, so they must be good. Because if the law is about protecting competition, your simpleton argument falls. The actual, supportable fact is that the protection of free trade is the goal of antitrust law. fpg