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 (21582)	11/20/1998 12:13:00 AM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

On the other hand, three months of reading F.A. Hayek's political philosophy has given me a strong sense, at least in his world, of the treatment under the law as a component of the rule of law in a liberal society. The difference in treatment that antitrust law accords to monopolists in order to achieve a particular economic distribution or outcome violates this very basic principle. We may be getting a bit afar here, but equal treatment under the law is a very nebulous statement. I've not read Hayek (could you recommend a good starting book?), but I would think that equal treatment refers to things like Bills of Attainder and non-prosecution of cronies. After all, Sun, Netscape, and Oracle are also prevented from using any monopolistic advantages to deter competition. Furthermore, are we talking about equal treatment of people, or of corporations? For example, some industries are taxed more than others. Does Hayek presume that utility taxes should rise and fall with cigarette taxes? Or that there should be no breaks given just to small businesses because that's unfair to large businesses?

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21582)	11/20/1998 2:03:00 AM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

I could be reading more into this than is there, but I smell something here. I find it hard to believe that they are emphasizing this theme over and over again just for PR or just to improve the atmospherics of the trial, since the strategy is very unlikely to sway Judge Jackson, who presumably understands perfectly the reasons why monopolists are treated differently than non-monopolists. I have been having the same thoughts. Where are the MSFT lawyers going with their arguments? On the surface, it appears as if they are following a dead-end, but then I think that I must be missing something.