[Am-info] States' remedy?

[Hans Reiser]

j0h3l17-o4p@pop.earthlink.net wrote:

> AM-listers,
>
> In California, the Secretary of State controls the priveleges of 
> foreign corporations (incorporated in another state) to conduct 
> business here.  For the most part, I believe that these requirements 
> are fulfilled by paying regular fees.  However, the Business and 
> Professions Code--which regulates business types ranging from 
> cosmetologists to attorneys--has some curious language which I have 
> never seen mentioned, much less publicly enforced.
>
>     From California Business and Professions code Section 16573:
>
>
>     "Every foreign corporation [incorporated in another state]or
>     association, exercising any of the powers, franchises or functions
>     of a corporation in this state, which violates this chapter
>     [Chapter 2, Part 2, Division 7] is subject to revocation of those
>     powers, franchises or functions and upon such revocation is
>     prohibited from doing any business in this state. The Attorney
>     General, or a district attorney of a county where the offense or
>     any part thereof is committed, may enforce this provision by
>     bringing proper proceedings by injunction or otherwise.  Upon
>     receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and decree of any
>     court of competent jurisdiction finding any foreign corporation or
>     association guilty of violating this chapter and ordering a
>     revocation of its powers, franchises or functions of a corporation
>     in this state, the Secretary of State shall revoke the license of
>     any such corporation or association heretofore authorized to do
>     business in this state."
>
>
>     http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=bpc&codebody=&hits=All
>     scroll down to Division 7
>
>
> The Chapter cited refers to Combinations in Restraint of Trade, and 
> the enforcement provisions may or may not apply to Microsoft.  If any 
> legal types are reading this (other than MS's own, obviously) I would 
> be very curious to know whether or not  they could be, or whether 
> revocation of business priveleges could be applied to anticompetitive 
> behavior provisions in other Chapters.
>
> Licenses to conduct business are revoked under the B & P code on a 
> daily basis.
>
> Instead of trying to "level the playing field", it seems that the 
> various DOJs ought to look at the way sports actually work.  Playing 
> fields don't become "unlevel".  Offending players don't have their 
> arms tied behind their backs, they get booted out of the game for a 
> while.  The simplest, most effective thing that could be done would be 
> to let MS keep its code, its APIs, its software bundles, its 
> intellectual property, its money, everything.  Everything except its 
> business license, which is something it does not own, and which the 
> government is quite capable of legally yanking.
>
> At the Federal level, Judge Kotellar-Kelley could simply instruct the 
> IRS to alter Microsoft's FEIN status from "active" to "inactive", 
> beginning Jan. 1, for two years.  This remedy would be once sentence 
> long, do the job convincingly, and, interestingly enough, agree with 
> nearly every argument Microsoft has ever made, letting them keep 
> everything they have ever asked for in court!  (Have they ever asked 
> not to be put out of business?  Putting competitors out of business is 
> MSs mission in life, they are fair game!)
>
> At the State level, enforcement of this nature might also help 
> California deal with outside energy providers who may or may not have 
> colluded to raise prices.
>
> Can any legal eagles shed some light on these statutes?  Is this an 
> area where increasing public attention might be effective?
>
> eje

It would be nice to see this enforced against MS.  Perhaps you might see 
if you can get Geek PAC to try to lobby the California Secretary of State.

Hans