[Am-info] Re: Judge orders hearing on settlement

[sturde@az.com]

In <20020208230602.21B2229BCB@lists.essential.org>, on 02/08/02 
   at 06:06 PM, am-info-request@venice.essential.org said:

>Judge orders March hearing on MS settlement

Esteemed colleagues:  Perhaps I am reading tea leaves, but I think the
"settlement" is going to be rejected.  I solicit Mr. Gilbert's usual
cogent opinion, but usually a judge who does not want to be reversed on an
appeal, will give the person she is going to rule against every chance to
be heard.  Especially, when the litigant has the money of MS and the U.S.
taxpayer behind it.  This may well be a case that helps define what the
Tunney Act means if anything.  I know that the Judge Sporford, I believe,
who heard the first settlement, rejected it.  It would be interesting to
know the procedures he followed before rejecting it.  I believe he
rejected it on Tunney Act grounds and the court of appeals overturned his
opinion.

The real question of the Judge which the Tunney Act should compel MS and
DOJ to answer, is this:  Since MS is a predatory monopoly, how will the
proposed settlement break the power of the predatory monopoly?  When I
wrote DOJ, I cited the Nader objections and then said simply, "How will
the proposed remedies of the settlement end the predatory monopoly?  I
then stated that in my opinion the proposed settlement would not.  Thus it
should be  rejected.  Since Congress enacted the Tunney law, there is a
presumption that it has some validity and utility.

In any event the next two months in computer terms will be interesting.

With the AIDS epidemic in Africa, perhaps in absolute terms our mail list
is much ado about nothing.  But I leave such ruminations to Felmon on this
list, who will probably accuse me of being Pickwickian.

James Sturdevant   

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

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