Subject: Re: [Am-info] Appeals Court Announcement

[sturde@az.com]

In <20000614160004.A78D92A371@venice.essential.org>, on 06/14/00 
   at 12:00 PM, am-info-admin@venice.essential.org said:

>Subject: Re: [Am-info] Appeals Court Announcement

Touting the full court of appeals panel accepting the case as a "victory"
for MS seems questionable.  The usual appellate journey is to a three
judge panel, then the full panel, then the Supreme Court.  In the instant
case where delay is to MS benefit, skipping the three judge panel, would
not to me seem to inurr to MS benefit.

The other part I find intriging is Judge Jackson's interview and a speech
of Joel Klein that I read.  Both said that there is no need for new law,
and that the techniques MS has used are the traditional ones that
monopolists have used forever.  If that, in fact, is the case, why should
the Supreme Court hear it.  Where is the new issue of law that needs to be
decided.  As far as the remedies are concerned, divestiture has been a
standard and common anti-trust remedy.  I could see the case going to the
D.C. Court of Appeals, being heard and then the Supreme Court declining
review.  The fundamental issues are whether MS received a "fair" hearing
and whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the
decision both as to factual determination and as to remedy.

If MS's big contention is that it is "new" law because it jerry-rigs its
coding, there is nothing new about that concept, except that MS uses on
and off switches.

James Sturdevant

-----------------------------------------------------------
sturde@az.com

-----------------------------------------------------------