Re: [ga] RE: Antitrust Violations: Fact versus Fiction

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Wrong again,

This is the same kind of thing that caused derision in the at-large group.

I am sure that what you meant to say was;

"and if someone complains and a government prosecutor decides it is expedient both
politically and legally, then and only then will a participant be charged with a
violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act and then only if it is not in direct
conflict with national interests and there is funding to support it, and then a duly
organized and appropriate court my determine a violation of the Sherman Act"

The discrepancy between real life and Ivory Tower proclamations of Law are huge.
Trademark law application on a day to day basis, pragmatics and economics are
completely different than hypotheticals.
Antitrust enforcement has almost always been a political and economic with the legal
justification being an after the fact justification.

I ran a little search and the most often quoted source was none other than the
author.

Great for a course syllabus but lacking in business practice.

e

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> if the participants are in the US and are participants in a "market" and
> they are not acting at the goverment's direction, and they engage in
> concerted action to contraol the market in a way that restrains
> competition and if a small number of exceptions don't apply, then they are
> violating section 1 of the Sherman Act.
>
> I suggest you try reading the paper.
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 eric@hi-tek.com wrote:
>
> > Wow,
> >
> > For US anti-trust law it matters not how you characterize the subject of the
> > enterprise?
> > Steel, Microsoft, cars, Bar Associations, Telephone companies, Utility
> > companies, hardware stores, and stock traders and satellites, telegraphs and
> > railroads and baseball are all handled the same?
> > Wow!  Damn those Roosevelts, they sure fooled me.  Oh and that guy Cordoza,
> > and Brandeis and Marshall, shoot they were just playing.  Do you have a
> > correspondence course so I could learn more of this revisionist history
> > lesson?  I did not notice that common law and civil law through out precedence
> > when the Internet was established.
> > Come on, whether the internet is a USG resource, a commodity or a service and
> > whether it is vital to national and international security and whether it will
> > work without consolidation are  the core questions, you ivory tower guys just
> > avoid it.  Why not define it?
> > e
> >
> > "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> >
> > > <much snippage>
> > > For US anti-trust law it matters not how you characterize "the Internet",
> > > only how you characterize various relationships among the parties, so for
> > > this purpose we don't need to get into the deep waters you wish us to swim
> > > in.
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                       -->It's very hot here.<--
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html