George,

>>George,
>>
>>PMFJI... & IANAL (thank God <g>)
>>
>>Doesn't matter. It is the law currently and the case has to proceed under current law.
>
>Nope, Doug I can't agree. It should be the function of the court to also determine the applicability of the law to the current case and in view of the current times. Failing to do so is ultimately a disservice to all.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then I guess. Legislatures make laws not courts, or at least that's how I learned it. <g>

>
>>However, as to whether or not the Sherman Anti-Trust Act should be abolished/modified/extended is IMO most certainly up for review. That seems more to be a political issue though.
>
>From my POV the process should be to challenge the applicability of Sherman in the courts first. Then, provided it found to be inapplicable revise it accordingly.

From where I sit if someone wants to challenge a law like this I think it's great and they should so do but I guess I still think that at the end of the day the legislature is where this battle should take place.

>
>>Seems to me that a real big part of today's economy is moving at a pace so fast that the traditional response as measured in units of time is almost rendered entirely meaningless.
>>
>>Don't quite know what the best tradeoff would be here. Faster and potentially more error prone justice or new laws that as always and by virtue of being after the factmust follow an action rather than preceed it. Laws, by virtue of being reactive rather then proactive must be more finely crafted to make sure that they have the intended impact.
>>
>>Today's crook also moves at the speed of the Internet it seems...
>>
>
>One thing that struck me in reading the document were the references (2 of them) to what appears to be the AT&T decision. I'm not terribly well versed in either the law or the decision, yet, in turning this over in my mind, I can find little connection between that case and this other than they both involve Sherman. Both the circumstances and nature of the companies involved seem to be extremely different. If this is true, then why rely on such a case as precedence? I really don't know the answer. If someone else does, I'd like to hear the reasoning.

Sure, me too, but doesn't that then beg the question about the motives of the government? Seems to so do in my mind and I guess I'd go right back to the notion that the government as a monopoly and seeking to protect its monopoly on power is using these laws to defend itself from perceived threats, like AT&T or Microsoft.

And, since the goverment has protected itself against lawsuits..... <g>

Best,

DD