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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (14972)	12/17/1997 3:49:00 AM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

The issue about notice occurred to me, but, without doing a boatload of research, I cannot say how the issue would play out. On the one hand, when interpreting the federal rules of civil procedure, formalities matter, and notice is certainly one of the most important formalities there are. On the other hand, looking past the formalities, can it not be said that Microsoft had a full and fair opportunity to present its case? How would providing formal notice have materially altered Microsoft's argument? Also, what's the remedy? To disolve the injunction or have the same Judge (or the Special Master) hold another hearing, with the existing preliminary injunction being left in place as a TRO? And where does that remedy get Microsoft, if not out of the frying pan into the fire? My personal gut-reaction view is that lack of formal notice would kill the injunction. But that's TOTALLY uninformed. Go read the cases cited in their brief. Do some research on the law in the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court (citations to which are rather sparse in their brief, if I might be so presumptuous as to say). microsoft.com