Re: In the Briefcases of Gates' Lawyers

[Hans Reiser <reiser@ricochet.net>]

  I regret that on reviewing these cases I found that except for Jefferson Parish
  they were not very relevant to suing Microsoft, being mostly focused on
  franchising issues.  Did I miss something?
  
  Hans
  
  charles mueller wrote:
  
  >         I recently compiled a list of the U.S. Supreme Court cases that
  > brought American antitrust to a halt--beginning a couple of decades ago.
  > These are the precedents that are in the briefcase of every lawyer who
  > represents a monopolist.
  > They're the ones Bill Gates' lawyers have committed to memory--and briefed
  > him on, and carefully explained to him, as they assured him over the years
  > that he has every "right" under the antitrust laws to monopolize "his"
  > industry.  This handful of decisions by the country's highest court is the
  > root source of his arrogance in dealing with the Justice Department and the
  > competitors he's smashed--of his assurance that he's untouchable.  Each of
  > them of them blocks antitrust enforcement in a particular area; and
  > together, they block it in all (save collusive price- fixing).
  >
  >         These decisions are "linked" on my Web page, which of course means
  > you can read them in full text there and print out a copy of the full set
  > for your OWN briefcase.  If the people who are technically skilled should
  > also make themselves knowledgeable in antitrust law and policy (and in that
  > regard I also invite you to read my Antitrust Overview, the introduction to
  > my antitrust Web site), the size of Bill's information advantage would
  > undergo a dramatic shrinkage.
  >
  >         You can go directly to my 'Dirty Dozen' cases at:
  >                      http://webpages.metrolink.net~cmueller/dirty.html
  >
  >         Charles Mueller, Editor
  >         ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
  >         http://webpages.metrlink.net/~cmueller
  >
  >                                                ******
  >
  >                       ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
  >
  >                             'Dirty Dozen' U.S. Antitrust Cases
  >
  >              In the U.S., over 1,500 private antitrust cases had been
  >        filed in the federal courts each year until the mid-70s, plus
  >        roughly 100 each by the Justice Department's Antitrust
  >        Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Today,
  >        only a handful of cases are filed and virtually all are
  >        dismissed out of hand by the courts. In effect, then, U.S.
  >        antitrust has been effectively closed down since about 1975,
  >        with the acceptance by Justice/FTC--and then the federal
  >        judiciary--of "economic" theory as the case standard.
  >
  >              This body of theory, now incorporated into nearly a
  >        dozen decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, currently kills
  >        virtually all cases except for the rawest kind of explicit
  >        price-fixing. Monopoly by merger--and by the coercive
  >        exclusion of more efficient competitors--is now routinely
  >        approved on the basis of these "dirty dozen" Supreme Court
  >        precedents. The U.S. judiciary, assuming the power to set
  >        the country's "industrial policy", has opted for the
  >        "consolidation" of U.S. industry into 2-firm (and even
  >        1-firm) monopoly, a policy which is spelled out in this set of
  >        decisions that, together, constitutes a gauntlet no serious
  >        anti-monopoly case can survive in 1997.
  >
  >              The full on-line texts of these "dirty dozen" antitrust
  >        decisions of America's highest Court are linked here,
  >        courtesy of Findlaw's case archives:
  >
  >              Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S.
  >             36 (1977)
  >              Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S.
  >             477 (1977)
  >              Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., 465 U.S.
  >             752 (1984)
  >              Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466
  >             U.S. 2 (1984)
  >              Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475
  >             U.S. 574 (1986)
  >              Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 479 U.S. 104
  >             (1986)
  >              Business Electronics v. Sharp Electronics, 485 U.S.
  >             717 (1988)
  >              Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S.
  >             328 (1990)
  >              Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
  >             Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993)
  >
  >                                            ******************************
  >
  >         Charles Mueller, Editor
  >         ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
  >         http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller