Slashdot Mirror


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."

48 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. What's the deal with anti-trust? by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why does Microsoft have so many anti-trust concerns? I mean, is there anybody left who still actually trusts Microsoft?

  2. It doesn't matter what the law is by beamdriver · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:It doesn't matter what the law is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:It doesn't matter what the law is by sribe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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???

    3. Re:It doesn't matter what the law is by yintercept · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

  3. Brought to you by... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Funny

    And when I read the article... I had a nice big MSN butterly ad breaking it up. Does Microsoft have it's finger into everything?

    1. Re:Brought to you by... by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is that what's in that big white spot?

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  4. CAN ANYONE SAY..... by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 4, Funny

    Conflict of Interest?

    Seriously, it's like hiring Janet Jackson to chair a senate subcommittee on decency in public broadcasting!

  5. Well, look on the bright side... by JayBlalock · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    1. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by EvanED · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but what stops MS from selling a stripped down version of Windows in Europe while selling the full version with all its 'goodness' here? Some people would buy it from overseas, sure, but most people would still just get whatever came on the computer.

    2. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by JayBlalock · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Of course, it would depend on exactly what sort of ruling the EU hands down. But if they, as is rumored, assess fines of hundreds of millions of dollars (Euros), then that will put Microsoft in a bad position either way. Either they pay up a fine which would hurt even them, and play by the rules, or they pull out of Europe.

      I don't *think* they would start putting out, essentially, two different versions of Windows, with Europe getting the stripped-down version. For one thing, what sort of sense does it make to sell the inferior product to the larger customer base? Especially when Europe is increasingly looking towards Linux. Not to mention the costs involved in maintaining even more versions of the platform.

      No, while it would, of course, be possible for Microsoft to continue their evil ways with new methods, on the whole this may be the catalyst that forces them to start playing nicely. There's just too much to lose from pissing the EU off.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    3. Re:Well, look on the bright side... by rsborg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  6. Corrupt by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Corrupt by Darken_Everseek · · Score: 2, Funny

      When your quarterly revenue is $30B, you can do a -lot- of owning.

    2. Re:Corrupt by mikeophile · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    3. Re:Corrupt by ArgumentBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  7. And in other news... by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Funny

    Josef Mengele will be taking over as the new Director of the American Red Cross.

    1. Re:And in other news... by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Funny

      And Darl McBride will take over maintances of kernel 2.6.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  8. So what? by 0x54524F4C4C · · Score: 5, Funny


    Bush and Blair were nominated for the nobel peace award.

    1. Re:So what? by mentokthemindtaker · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Bush and Blair were nominated for the nobel peace award.
      So was Hitler.
    2. Re:So what? by gizmonic · · Score: 2, Informative

      And Yassar Arafat was awarded one. So that prize doesn't mean shit.

      --
      WWJD?
      JWRTFM!
    3. Re:So what? by EinarH · · Score: 3, Informative
      There is so many people that can nominate that of course Hitler was nominated. But a nomination doesn't mean shit. The committee has no control over the nominations which are submitted to it. If you are among the persons that can nominate you could nominate Elvis if you want to.

      And the person that nominated Hitler in 1938 withdrew his nomination a couple of months later. Hitler didn't even make it to the shortlist.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

  9. Mr. Fox? Paging Mr. Fox! by bc90021 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mr. Fox, would you be so kind as to go to that henhouse and guard those chickens? Thank you, that is all. ;)

  10. Does it really matter? by Marx_Mrvelous · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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? ;)

    --

    Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
    1. Re:Does it really matter? by gaijin99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      "Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
  11. Not news by 1010011010 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Microsoft lobbies to avoid penalties under the law, to reduce governmental oversight of itself, and to reduce enforcement of judgements already handed down.

    Duh.

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
  12. Does anyone know WHO we can appeal/complain to? by llamafirst · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    Does anyone know to whom we can appeal/complain at the ABA or elsewhere in the government about this potential conflict of interest? You know, and have the complaining/appealing be actually useful? If so, please post...

  13. My sig by Almost-Retired · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)

  14. What does the position do? by BoneFlower · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IS the position meant to be filled by someone who works against monopolies, or is it more of an advisory/educational position, where it requires someone who knows a lot about anti trust and their opinion of antitrust laws isn't an issue?

  15. actually, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, it's nothing like that.

    This guy is on a panel being organized in OPPOSITION to a congressional plan that would require more aggressive oversight by the courts of anti-trust settlements.

    This isn't like hiring Janet Jackson to chair a senate subcommittee on decency in public broadcasting. This is like NAMBLA hiring a pedophile to help promote its causes. The complete opposite of what you're suggesting.

  16. Re:Clean it all up! by GoMMiX · · Score: 2, Funny
    "Or Bush in charge of military intelligence."


    Military Intelligence, is that another one of those stupid reality shows?
  17. Is it such a problem, really? by Rallion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  18. The ABA may just be pursuing its agenda by belmolis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  19. Contact the ABA by kesler · · Score: 2

    Give the ABA feedback, slashdot style: http://www.abanet.org/scripts/contactmail.jsp?to=q uestions

  20. also this by benjonson · · Score: 2, Funny

    In other news, MSNBC is reporting that the American Bar Association's Hen House will now be run by I. M. Foxxe.

    --
    =-+
  21. Re:Frivolous McDonald's lawsuit by 3vi1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  22. This is just silly by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  23. MOD UP by EvanED · · Score: 4, Informative

    People are not reading the article. The group the lawyer is in charge of is a lobbying group, not one that will be making any of the decisions.

  24. Right guy for the job! by rehabdoll · · Score: 4, Funny

    He sure got experience.

  25. The Civil courts remain another avenue of Justice by NZheretic · · Score: 3, Informative
    Judge orders Gates to pretrial questioning
    Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates must submit to questioning under oath by lawyers for Burst.com Inc. and Sun Microsystems Inc. as they prepare antitrust claims against the world's largest software maker, a U.S. judge said Friday.

    U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore ordered Gates to undergo the pretrial questioning for three hours.

    Burst.com has sued Microsoft, accusing the company of breaking antitrust laws to prevent competition for software used to broadcast sound and audio programs over the Internet.

    Motz noted that a federal appeals court has limited use in private suits against Microsoft of evidence from the government's antitrust case against the company. Given that, lawyers for Sun and Burst must have a freer hand to prepare their own evidence, he said.

    "It seems to me you ought to be able to depose Mr. Gates or anybody else deposed by the government as much as you want to," Motz told Lloyd Day, a lawyer representing Sun Microsystems.

    Motz accepted Burst's argument that Gates "is no Lee Iacocca" and should be forced to answer questions about allegations that Microsoft illegally stifled competition.

    Iacocca, when he headed Chrysler Corp., was excused from being questioned under oath in a product-liability lawsuit after arguing that he wasn't personally responsible for the alleged design flaws in cars that were at issue in the case.

  26. ridiculous Wired snippet... by odin53 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Try reading the whole AP article on which it's based.

    The chair of an ABA section isn't all that powerful -- that is, she can't decide ABA "policy" on anything. ABA policies and recommendations are committee-driven things, and the Antitrust section is especially highly organized; there are many subcommittees based on subject, and each subcommittee has a chair (or two). Becoming the chair of an ABA section is really 1) a prestige thing, meaning that the chair is widely respected as a top-flight attorney or legal mind in the area the section covers, and 2) an organizational thing.

    The ABA sections have varying levels of influence in legislation; arguably, the antitrust section is quite influential. But there are many reasons that Microsoft will really have no sway, either at the ABA level or the legislation level.

    In any case, a conflict of interest MIGHT occur if the ABA were supposed to decide something important or instrumental to the Microsoft antitrust cases. But the ABA most certainly isn't, because that's not the ABA's job.

  27. Re: They should be by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful


    > 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?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  28. Re:Okay... I am more convinced that capitolism suc by bersl2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  29. This isn't really a big deal by n8ur · · Score: 5, Informative

    This appointment doesn't have any real significance. The ABA is not a government agency; it's a private lawyer's organization that is voluntary (lots and lots of lawyers don't belong).

    The ABA has a lot of different subgroups, on anti-trust, patent law, corporate law, etc. They do training on their areas of specialty, have meetings to talk about their area of interest, and do sometimes lobby about pending legislation.

    The ABA Antitrust section has been pro-business, anti-enforcement forever, so this is really no big deal.

  30. Re:Okay... I am more convinced that capitolism suc by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  31. It'd be difficult... by darnok · · Score: 2, Funny

    to find an anti-trust lawyer who hasn't worked for or against Microsoft these days, wouldn't it?

  32. Re:Okay... I am more convinced that capitolism suc by yourmom16 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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$.

    --
    "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
  33. Re:Frivolous McDonald's lawsuit by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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!"
    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.