[Am-info] Re: To put it bluntly

[sturde@az.com]

In <20020113170101.AD9BB29B45@lists.essential.org>, on 01/13/02 
   at 12:01 PM, am-info-request@venice.essential.org said:

>>"To put it bluntly," Judge Motz wrote, "in the words of the opponents of the
>>proposed settlement, the donation of free software could be viewed as
>>constituting `court-approved predatory pricing.' "

>Finally, somebody gets it.

I know I have heard massive gnashing of teeth and wailing as if from the
outer darkness of the book of Revelation on this forum.  But I go back to
my original position.  There are anti-trust laws.  The judges who enforce
them are not dumb.  And Judge Motz (male or female) knows balderdash when
he sees it.  The DOJ suit:  Under the Tunny Act MS was to reveal ALL
contacts with legislators.  It conveniently left some out.  If someone did
that in my courtroom, I would be disturbed.  When the law is clear and
there is non-compliance especially with MS resources...

Another point about Judge Motz, he did mention that damages could be $40
billion.  So what is $1 billion of "goods" compared to a large money
judgment.


James Sturdevant


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

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