On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Mike Kerner <[email protected]> wrote: > There has been no decision on remedies. The remedies you listed are NOT > the ones approved by the court, just proposed by the DOJ.
Having *some* familiarity with this area of law from my former life, though, something like this is likely what remedies will look like, give or take (but there are other possibilities). Keep in mind that if the judge hadn't run around shooting off his mouth in public, Microsoft would be two companies today . . . (contrary to popular belief and the Microsoft line, the split *not* found inappropriate or overturned---the appellate court vacated everything the judge did after a certain date as his behavior undermined public confidence in his neutrality and the fairness of the process [and *noone*, except perhaps OJ, has *ever* gotten more due process out of the system]). >We can debate > how rational or bizarre the decision seems, but until it has worked its way > through to SCOTUS, nothing is really decided. I would be surprised if > SCOTUS let this stand, as any of the publishers was free to tell Apple to > go to hell, but simply chose not to. This might even end at the circuit court. The underlying legal theory is kind of bizarre, and against the trend of the last 30 years of antitrust law: To deal with an oligopoly, you built market power among the victims, and used this market power in a way that lowers prices for consumers. Yeah, the oligopolists were hurt, but so what? This was very much pro-consumer behavior. The prosecution is in line with 1950's litigation against IBM, not a judiciary which has digested Bork's "Antitrust Paradox" and Posner's writing on the subject. -- Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. (702) 508-8462 _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
