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

[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.

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

[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.

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?

[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: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