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 (20232)	6/24/1998 11:38:00 PM
From: Gerald R. Lampton	Respond to of 24154

"We read this as a low-threshold test, which is consistent with the notion that innovation is good, in law and economics," Mr. Neukom said. He also predicted the appeals court's endorsement of "judicial restraint" will weigh on the lower court in the broader case. "I think both of those lessons will play an important role in proceedings that go forward in this circuit in relation to Windows 98," Mr. Neukom said. From today's Wall Street Journal.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (20232)	6/25/1998 1:42:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

>>>Appointment of a special master is inappropriate, not because of the court's competence or lack thereof to deal with technical issues, but because the constitution (and the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure cited by the court) does not allow the judicial power of the United States to be vested in anyone other than publicly appointed judges. Appointing Lessig effectively delegated essentially judicial power to a private individual.<<< But there have been special masters in many other cases, having to deal with the details of any specific industry has sometimes led to this kind of delegation in the past, or so I understood. Am I wrong about this. Even the antique phrasing of the title makes me think that this is a rather traditional solution. What's up with that? Chaz