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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: accountclosed who wrote (36660)	11/18/1998 2:39:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 132070

Ans. to Q 1, recent compared to the common law? To the U.S. Code? Don't know the year, it was in effect when I was in law school, I started in 1983, but I think it was fairly new then. My first boss used to try to use RICO in civil matters to jack up recovery, don't think he ever prevailed. Treble damages, baby, hard to pass up. Until you wise up, judges don't like it and you're pounding sand. Ans. to Q. 2: which Microsoft trial? I assume you mean the federal antitrust case. Wow, my answer depends on whether you mean, do I think that Microsoft violated federal law, or do I think that Microsoft should lose. If the former, I think, based on the evidence I saw paraphrased on CNBC, Microsoft violated federal antitrust law. Although I have only a rudimentary understanding of the various federal acts, the same former boss also pushed antitrust cases, for the same reason (treble damages). I don't think that Microsoft is guilty on the cosmic scale, but that's not the measure they must meet. CobaltBlue