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."
Why does Microsoft have so many anti-trust concerns? I mean, is there anybody left who still actually trusts Microsoft?
It only matters who is intepreting it and who is enforcing it. This is a lesson Microsoft has learned well.
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?
Conflict of Interest?
Seriously, it's like hiring Janet Jackson to chair a senate subcommittee on decency in public broadcasting!
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.
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.
Josef Mengele will be taking over as the new Director of the American Red Cross.
Bush and Blair were nominated for the nobel peace award.
Mr. Fox, would you be so kind as to go to that henhouse and guard those chickens? Thank you, that is all. ;)
libertarianswag.com
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!
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 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?
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.
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.
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
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.
He sure got experience.
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.
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.