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: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (14973)	12/16/1997 3:49:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

Gerry, could you post some links to the references for Lessig. All the law links I have are for-charge. Perhaps I'm obsolete in the law on the web area, and there are good free references now? BTW, I appreciate your postings on this guy and on the law in general here. Keep it up. Your link to the original ruling was great and I did read it in its entirety. Thanks. Am I wrong that there is a disconnect between MS saying the 'ruling has no teeth' and their statements in the appeal? Both are just situational truth, eh? What are the chances that the judge will issue another statement to clear up the 'confusion' about the meaning of the injunction and other rulings? I imagine that a judge that issued an injunction would be pretty displeased to have the subject of the injunction saying the injunction will have "no effect." Also, since many people here seem to think it unfair for the judge to 'go beyond' the original charges (justice dept complaint) could you clarify the ability of judges and others to add to charges in a trial or proceeding as other issues emerge that may be related. I thought in fact that in some cases a judge could initiate proceedings on his/her own? Chaz