Microsoft Lawyer To Lead ABA's Antitrust Section

Dan writes "Wired is reporting that a top lawyer from Microsoft will take over later this year as chairman of the American Bar Association's antitrust section. The panel is organizing opposition to a congressional plan that would require more aggressive oversight by the courts of such antitrust settlements. Considering the next major ruling in MS's case is due soon, you can figure out how important this is to MS."

Comments

It doesn't matter what the law is

[beamdriver]

It only matters who is intepreting it and who is enforcing it. This is a lesson Microsoft has learned well.

Re:It doesn't matter what the law is

[Anonymous Coward]

If this had happened in a third world country many in USA would have called it corruption or unacceptable.

Re:It doesn't matter what the law is

[sribe]

If this had happened in a third world country many in USA would have called it corruption or unacceptable.

Uhhhhhm... You do realize that the ABA is a private entity, not a government organization???

Re:It doesn't matter what the law is

[yintercept]

If this had happened in a third world country many in USA would have called it corruption or unacceptable.

That is completely absurd. If an appointment like this happened in the third world, the adminstration would assess the impact on US business (especially on campaign contributors). If they found a negative impact, then they would call it corruption based on their findings.

This blanket statement that the US condemns all third world corruption is absurd. We are highly selective.

Well, look on the bright side...

[JayBlalock]

Even if America is no longer willing to keep Microsoft in line, it would appear that Europe has no such compunctions. Rumors are flying that the EU's economics enforces are about to really lay down the hammer on Microsoft. And considering that the EU now represents a larger consumer base than the US (although, granted, some of them in countries without so much technology), the EU could effectively force them to revamp the way they do business.

Even Microsoft would be in trouble if it was suddenly cut off from 300+ million potential customers.

Re:Well, look on the bright side...

[rsborg]

And considering that the EU now represents a larger consumer base than the US (although, granted, some of them in countries without so much technology)

One thing to note: Microsoft in the US is dealing with a saturated market... often competing *with itself* (think: if win98 on your 400Mhz laptop is working fine for you, why upgrade to XP?). The new, larger EU represents a nice chunk of potential revenue... sure they won't be willing to pay the same prices as in the US, but then again, how much additional effort does it take to internationalize windows/office/etc to a few more languages compared to the potential gains?

The EU is definitely M$'s big new enemy, and unlike the US, they don't quite trust M$... nor do they have any institional reason to.

Corrupt

[BWJones]

Well, I would really like to give the profession more credit than this, but does not anyone see a conflict of interest here? The standard should be "avoiding even the appearance of impropriety", so how is it that the entire American Bar Association think this is a good idea? Are they that owned?

Re:Corrupt

[mikeophile]

It looks like the ABA is taking it's cue from that bastion of ethical responsiblity, Supreme Court Justice "Big Tony" Scalia.

Scalia insists his hunting trip with VP Cheney during the time that the Supreme Court was hearing a case involving Cheney is in no way improper and refuses to recuse himself from the case.

If our Supreme Court is this corrupt, it doesn't surprise me that our legal system is screwed from the top down.

Re:Corrupt

[ArgumentBoy]

The ABA itself is one of the great barrier-to-entry monopolies. If you went back 100 years, you'd find that lots of people could practice law without going to law school - they would clerk, or, in some cases, would be admitted to the bar because they were or had been a state legislator. The ABA has a substantial financial interest in limiting the number of people who are eligible to be paid for their kind of work, and have insisted on laws that make it illegal for nonlawyers to do certain kinds of law-related work. Frankly, I see this whole thing as analogous to having Senators writing the legislation controlling what's a bribe and what's a contribution. I think it's silly to pay much attention to the ABA on an issue like this.

I heard this story before...

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard this story before- wasn't it called Little Red Riding Hood?

Does it really matter?

[Marx_Mrvelous]

I somehow doubt he's still on MS's payroll anymore. Maybe the fact that he's been defending Microsoft will give him good insight into just how they've handled things (well or poorly). And wouldn't a lawyer with a lot of antitrust expereince make the ideal candidate for this position? After all, there are more cases out there than Microsoft. (Not to mention, are there any antitrust lawyers out there who, at one point, *didn't* work for MS? ;)

Re:Does it really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

I somehow doubt he's still on MS's payroll anymore. I wonder whether he still has his stock options?

Re:Does it really matter?

[gaijin99]

I somehow doubt he's still on MS's payroll anymore.

I'd rather have more proof of that than your doubts, thank you. How much MS stock does he own? If not him, how about his wife and/or children? Maybe he's hiding his stock with his parents? Etc, etc, etc... The simple fact is that due to his former (if indeed it is former) employment with a corporation facing major antitrust investigations his appointment is improper.

Truth told, I'd rather that all public officials, regardless of weather they are appointed or elected or whatever, be forbidden from owning stock in any corporation. When Senator X has stock in corporation Y I can't help but assume that he's going to be keeping an eye on his own best ineterest, not that of his constituants. If their own economic wellbeing is tied to a company than I can't trust them to do their jobs, its that simple. Step one after taking any office should be "sell all stock".

(Not to mention, are there any antitrust lawyers out there who, at one point, *didn't* work for MS? ;)

Personally I'd rather that no one who was ever involved in defending against an antitrust case be allowed to decide which antitrust cases can go forward. He's already chosen his side, and it isn't ours. If that sounds rather "us/them", it is. Monopoly is the single greatest threat that exists to a capitalist economy, and its the reason our economy suffering. I have absolutely no sympathy for, and I am completely unwilling to give any benefit of the doubt to, *anyone* who has ever defended a monopoly. They've chosen to side with those who want to destroy our economy.

My sig

[Almost-Retired]

The courses of action defined in my sig used on emails is getting closer and closer to the last option I fear. I mean, just how much longer is the american public actually going to tolerate what nearly 100% of us see as justice for sale to the highest bidder?

As Harry Truman once said about the buck stopping here, there will come a point when enough of us have had enough, and the passing of the buck will come to a screeching halt, with much of our constitution restored to its original meaning.

My sig? :

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap,
ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Is it such a problem, really?

[Rallion]

I mean, this guy is a lawyer. He doesn't have loyalties! Or ideals! Or morals! Or a soul.

So he worked for Microsoft. Because they gave him money. That, really, doesn't mean much about his own ideas. Lawyers are paid to put aside their own ideas, and sometimes even the truth, in order to make their own point.

The ABA may just be pursuing its agenda

[belmolis]

According to this AP item in USA Today, the ABA has already been opposing increased oversight of antitrust settlements by the courts. The appointment of a Microsoft lawyer as Chair of the Antitrust Section may not be so much a matter of the fox guarding the chicken coop as the recruitment of an experienced and committed anti-anti-trust lawyer to help the ABA pursue its agenda. It would be interesting to know whether the ABA is actually soft on anti-trust enforcement or whether it perhaps regards judicial oversight as improper interference with the relationship between the two parties.

Re:So what?

[mentokthemindtaker]

Bush and Blair were nominated for the nobel peace award.

So was Hitler.

Re:Frivolous McDonald's lawsuit

[3vi1]

While I agree that there are WAY too many frivolous lawsuits nowadays, it's irritating that people always refer to the McD lawsuit as one.

Have you investigated the case at all? 7 days in the hospital and numerous skin grafts. The $480,000 she got (not millions) probably barely covered her injuries, with the cost of medical care nowadays. A recent trip to the emergency room for a small cut that took 30 seconds to glue shut (after a 4 hour wait) came back as a $1,500 bill before my insurance.

More than 700 people had been previously scalded, but McDonalds knowingly kept their coffee at 185 degrees with no warning signs at all that it was abnormally hot. I've even heard they did it purposely to cut down on free refills, because people had to wait longer for it to cool - but that's not a fact to my knowledge.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

This is just silly

[Reality Master 101]

Unless he's still on Microsoft's payroll, who cares?

Or to put it another way, if you worked at one time for Sun's Java division, should you be forbidden to work for ISO?

Not everything is an evil conspiracy.

Re: They should be

[Black Parrot]

> Bush and Blair should be nominated. They ended Saddam's war against Iraq, Kuwait, and other countries which has killed over 500,000 people.

Many more, I think. Estimated 900,000 for the Iran-Iraq war, plus 300,000 Iraqi Shiites after the first Gulf War inspired them to rebel, plus many others in smaller increments.

> Iraq is now a free country, and has hope

Unfortunately, the proverbial fat lady hasn't sung yet. Other proverbs:

"You can have any kind of government you like, so long as it's the kind we want and makes the decisions we want it to."

"The arrests will continue until our welcome improves."

What is Iraq going to be like 2, 5, 10, or 20 years from now?

Re:Okay... I am more convinced that capitolism suc

[bersl2]

Capitalism isn't necessesarily bad.

Greed is. So is corruption.

To Capitalism's credit, it has legitimately produced very many households having a modest amount of wealth. But who of the super-rich gained his or her wealth by legitimate means?

I think you'll find that a system or ideology does not make a civilization -- the people do.

Re:Okay... I am more convinced that capitolism suc

[Brandybuck]

Don't blame this on capitalism. The ABA is about as anti-capitalism as you can get.

Re:Okay... I am more convinced that capitolism suc

[yourmom16]

Greed is part of human nature. in a communist society for instance, whoever distributes the rations will probably take a much larger amount for himself. The strength in capitalism lies in the fact that it uses greed for good. The problem here, however is that the legislators, who have the power to give benefits to companies, and create monopolies, or otherwise corrode the foundations of capitalism, are being bribed by those companies to do exactly that. The solution here is more of a political solution than an economic one.

There are two ways to prevent corruption, abolute power and limited power. Absolute power prevents corruption, because if you try to bribe the dictator, he can have you killed and all your stuff taken instead of giving you what you want. Limited power works because the company gains no benefit in bribing a politician who does not have the power to benefit them. Of course absolute power is even less desirable, so the solution to this problem is to prevent the legislators from making regulations or otherwise interfering with the capitalistic free-market economy. What we need is true capitalism rather than this pseudo-capitalist B$.

Re:Frivolous McDonald's lawsuit

[10Ghz]

Have you investigated the case at all? 7 days in the hospital and numerous skin grafts.

You pay for stupidity. Let's see... "I got this hot cup of coffee. Now, where could I put it while I pour in some cream and sugar? Ooh ooh, I know! Between my legs of course! That way I can squeeze it tight while I remove the plastic lid that keeps the cup in form.... Ouch, this coffee is hot!"

Maybe McD should sell their coffee only to people who have some common sense? What next? "Hey, I poured this cup of coffee on my head and it burned me! See you in court!"