Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Seeks Dismissal with 9 Dissenting States
zalix writes "Microsoft is seeking a dismissal of the
case brought by the 9 States who have refused to settle. In court papers filed
yesterday Microsoft claims that the states have no contitutional authority to
bring such action stating that "Permitting the nonsettling states to seek
sweeping, nationwide relief under the federal antitrust laws and would raise serious
constitutional questions," They go on to state "This would destroy Windows desktop operating systems as a stable and consistent development platform,"."
It was also reported that a federal judge overseeing the Microsoft antitrust case has dismissed a suit brought by a nonprofit antitrust group claiming that the parties didn't fully disclose communication related to the proposed settlement. See this link
And this...... Microsoft has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court to block media access to four depositions that have already been taken in its antitrust case, as well as one that has not yet occurred. See this link
And finally, a great place to get all the goods on the case... visit here!!! Good luck!
Since it's an interstate business, it can't be forced to treat those nine states differently.
I never thought that Business Law class would become useful...
Each state is given the right to dictate commerce in their state from The Constitution. As interstate business took off, people saw the need for a uniformed method of trade, thus some of the lawmakers and lawyers met to propose the Uniform Commercial Code. This was a set of laws that controlled how to conduct business and defined a uniform set of rules regarding trade. Each state had to review the laws and then pass a copy of the UCC.
Today, they still need to lobby each state and ask the state to pass the law. The only reason the laws are uniform is because each state agrees to use the basic premise of these codes. The constitution still allows them to pass any commercial codes they want. If the nine states want to treat Microsoft differently, then they can. This is the same reason that the UCITA is only approved in two states. Everyone is allowed to make their own decision.
What Microsoft is really asking for is that the courts stomp over another little piece of The Constitution and ban the states from using their legal right to control commerce in their states.
The courts have spoken, but only to the effect that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. The DoJ and 9 states have proposed a settlement with Microsoft that would take the case out of the hands of the federal court by settling it. These other 9 states have refused to be part of that settlement and want the case to proceed.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
If you recall, the only reason that there is the idea of "intellectual property" is because the government created this legal fiction for purposes of public good. Very similar to the existence of a corporation, actually.
You see, the government grants the special status of a corporation, and the special status of copyright. Given that those are both (useful) legal fictions, it is not unreasonable that the government can take them away or control them when these government created and granted legal fictions get abused.
Noone would stomach the government telling someone that they're not allowed to distribute the source code to their own program. What a person does is up to them (subject to constrains of law at least theoretically designed to keep people from infringing on each others' rights). A person as such has (inalienable) rights, including those of property and freedom of speech. However, a corporation doesn't even exist until the government creates it, and copyright does not exist on its own without the government creating it. Seeing as how both are their creations, is it not unreasonable that the government can direct the uses of its creation to prevent their abuses?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan