[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: In the Briefcases of Gates' Lawyers

          The 'Dirty Dozen' cases are "mostly focused on franchising" and thus
  "relevant" to the Microsoft problem?  Did you miss something?  Indeed you
  did.  This group of cases covers virtually every aspect of antitrust for the
  past 2 decades, from mergers to price discrimination to predatory pricing
  and so on.
  t 04:35 PM 11/9/97 -0800, you wrote:
  >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?
  >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
  >>         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
  >>         http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller