Doug,
>
>>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>

Yes, the legislature does make law. However, the courts still have the final say. Any law (or other piece of legislation) can be challenged in court and ultimately be overturned by the court.

>>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.

Yes, but the legislature doesn't have the final say as I mentioned above.

>>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>
>
Always the wit, eh, Doug?:-)