MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-10 |
| FROM | Ruben I Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: [fairuse] Re: E-Gov-OS conference
|
And the Beat goes On and On III
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=7705
TWO APPEAL ATTEMPTS AGAINST THE OUTCOME of the Microsoft antitrust case
have been rejected by the judge who presided over the widely criticised
settlement. Consumers for Computing Choice and Robert Litan,
representing a Washington think tank, have both seen their attempts to
appeal the settlement thrown out. U.S. District Judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly denied both motions to intervene for the purposes of
appeal.
In a move that will infuriate opponents of the Microsoft monopoly, the
U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division filed a response to the
petitions giving arguments as to why they should be struck down. It
seems the DoJ is happy with the state of the settlement even if many of
the consumers they are supposed to protect are not.
>From a legal standpoint, there seems to have been little choice but to
strike down the Litan and CCC's attempts. Similar interventions have
been tried before in other cases and they were also struck down.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association made an attempt to
extend the period of appeal before the motions were turned down. It had
hoped to file an appeal and, presumably, would have used the responses
to the earlier requests to hone its appeal so that it might have good
legal standing. Kollar-Kotelly refused the motion to extend the appeal
deadline before refusing the other motions.
The judge also criticised the arguments put forth, "even if the Court
were to agree that [Litan] has adequately alleged an interest implicated
by the Judgment, [he] still would not be entitled to intervene as of
right because he has failed to show that his interests have been
impaired." That's despite specific defects being pointed out to the DoJ
which were not rectified in the final judgement. The judge defended this
by writing that "mere failure to secure better remedies for a third
party . . . is not a qualifying impairment."
It seems that the case is effectively at an end. The settlement has been
settled upon. ยต
On 2003.02.10 17:20 Ruben I Safir wrote:
>
>
> On 2003.02.10 17:06 Ruben I Safir wrote:
> >
> > AND THE BEAT GOES ON....
>
> Part II
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2130190,00.html
>
>
> --
> __________________________
> Brooklyn Linux Solutions
> __________________________
> DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com
>
> http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
> http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
> http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories
and articles from around the net
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown
Brooklyn....
>
> 1-718-382-0585
> ____________________________
> New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
> Fair Use -
> because it's either fair use or useless....
>
--
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
__________________________
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and
articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown
Brooklyn....
1-718-382-0585
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
