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 : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ERM who wrote (2998)	10/28/1998 1:44:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 29970

By the Master Agreement Shaw and Rogers aren't so bound. They can directly engage Road Runner for instance. The stipulations under the Agreement were written to give the participants a feeling of redress or recourse in case of unforeseen problems arising. There is no way that ATHM would legally proceed against one of its partners if that partner wanted to run Road Runner in an area demanding that the MSO provide it. ATHM would be shooting itself in the foot if it did. In fact, the exclusivity clauses are essentially illegal. They restrain trade. You can't have a binding agreement based on an illegality. You have a point on the regulatory environment. ATHM will have to rewrite that aspect of the Master Agreement in order to comply with a status of competitive free market and the MSOs will have to concur. It isn't an issue internally, so I doubt that there will be any consequence among partners.