Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts United States Your Rights Online News

Microsoft Lawyer To Lead ABA's Antitrust Section 188

Posted by timothy from the takes-one-to-know-one dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Lawyer To Lead ABA's Antitrust Section More

Microsoft Lawyer To Lead ABA's Antitrust Section

Comments Filter:

  • What's the deal with anti-trust? (Score:5, Funny)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday February 07, 2004 @05:37PM (#8214063)
    Why does Microsoft have so many anti-trust concerns? I mean, is there anybody left who still actually trusts Microsoft?

  • It doesn't matter what the law is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beamdriver ( 554241 ) <beamdriver@gmail.com> on Saturday February 07, 2004 @05:40PM (#8214081) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 07, 2004 @05:46PM (#8214132)
      If this had happened in a third world country many in USA would have called it corruption or unacceptable.

      • Just because it's in the U.S. doesn't mean it's not corruption and acceptable. I'd say their intentions and methods are clear.
      • 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???
        • Uhhhhhm... You do realize that the ABA is a private entity, not a government organization???

          Actually, I don't. It's one of those meta-organizations which effectively govern government. Very much the wrong place to have any hint of corruption.

          I don't think I would get anywhere with something like the Unamerican Bar Association, regardless of membership.

      • Re:It doesn't matter what the law is (Score:5, Insightful)

        by yintercept ( 517362 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @07:41PM (#8214828) Homepage Journal
        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.

    • Not news (Score:3, Informative)

      by 1010011010 ( 53039 )
      Microsoft lobbies to avoid penalties under the law, to reduce governmental oversight of itself, and to reduce enforcement of judgements already handed down.

      Duh.

  • Brought to you by... (Score:5, Funny)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday February 07, 2004 @05:40PM (#8214087)
    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?

  • CAN ANYONE SAY..... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dr Reducto ( 665121 ) * on Saturday February 07, 2004 @05:43PM (#8214106) Journal
    Conflict of Interest?

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

    • actually, no (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.

  • Well, look on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @05:43PM (#8214107)
    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.

    • 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.
      • Some people would buy it from overseas

        And almost certainly fall foul of a clause in the EULA that specifies that the software can only be used in the EU or by its citizens (if overseas).

        Would that be legal? I don't know; but would you care to be the one to find out the hard way?

      • Re:Well, look on the bright side... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @06:34PM (#8214422)
        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.

        • This is not a different version of Windows, it's simply a version without Windows Media Player. This does not necessarily include the codecs that WMP uses. MS make their installation program for the Codecs delibrately dependant on WMP, specificly for leverage in court cases like this.
          The codecs could easily be installed seperately if they wanted to.
          So, users have to download a media player, big deal, at least it's the media player of their choice.
          Third party software that needs to play WMA files, and what n
          • Actually, most 3rd party software that plays wma files probably does require the windows media COM objects. A lot of windows applications simply embed the browser or media player, rather than recoding it.

            I would guess this would be a major pain for those applications -- the user would have to go and download windows media before they would work.
            • Third party software *should* use the default Media Player and not hardcode to WMP. I don't think this isn't difficult to do. But some Microsoft shops won't even consider technology that isn't Microsoft. This is the same with IE. Many applications could easily use Mozilla for HTML rendering if they wanted to.
              Well anyways, the outcome will be that if the user really wants to use lame software then, he/she has to install WMP.
        • 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.

          Any fine will undoubtedly be in Euros, which will hurt Microsoft on both the exchange rate and the commission. Also the EU is likely to want actual money, not Windows licences.
    • 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 e

    • The EU can only force them to revamp the way they do business *in Europe.* And something tells me that if that happens, M$ will only put the screws down harder in the U.S. - afterall, it will have to compensate for its "losses."

      It is no longer a matter of America being willing to keep M$ in line - it's a matter of them being able to. The general public seems to like M$, and as a result, they're going to get away with anything they try. This article proves that. Next, we'll see lawyers such as this elect
    • "really lay down"? The rumors I heard (some right here on slashdot) talked about a 1B Euro fine *at most*. That's hardly Bill's lunch money. Sure, it's more than the current going rate for politicians and judges in the US, but still small potatos to Microsoft.

  • Corrupt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Saturday February 07, 2004 @05:44PM (#8214109) Homepage Journal
    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?

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

    • Re:Corrupt (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mikeophile ( 647318 )
      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.

      • Nice slur there, the "Big Tony" thing. Nothing like an ad hominem attack to prove how strong and rational your position is.

        Scalia and Cheney have a prior existing friendship, and have taken this same hunting trip together many times. Since Scalia is appointed for life, Cheney can in no way improve or harm Scalia's career, and their mutual participation in this activity does not demonstrate bribery.

        Scalia can still recuse himself, although I suspect that if he does, your strong and rational position wi

    • Re:Corrupt (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ArgumentBoy ( 669152 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @06:14PM (#8214302)
      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.

      • ... you'd find that lots of people could practice law without going to law school[.]

        And would you like to hire such a 'lawyer' to represent you?

        'Guilds' such as the ABA are in a way monopolies, it's true. On the other hand: can you think of an easier way than membership of a 'guild' with certain 'quality requirements' to guarantee that a person you wish to hire actually has some qualification for the task at hand?!? Law nowadays is a vastly larger and more complex field than it was 100 years ago. Some 1

        • And would you like to hire such a 'lawyer' to represent you?
          Do you mean lawyers like Patrick Henry and Daniel Webster, or lawyers like John Marshal, Stephen Douglas, Strom Thurman and Abraham Lincoln? Maybe you meant famous trial lawyers like Clarence Darrow, or former ABA president Robert Storey?

          C'mon. Help me out here.

    • Really, though. Who better to lead a group in opposition to stronger antitrust regulations than one of the most stringent opponents to stronger antitrust regulation? I don't see how anyone thinks this is at all corruption, since the ABA is not a governing agency, and this appointment is simply to lobby congress, not make the laws.
    • The standard should be "avoiding even the appearance of impropriety", s

      No, don't you remember, that standard was recently changed, when Bush appointed his own committee to find out why he invaded Iraq ("Guys, investigate that and make sure you get back with any result way after the elections")... things are different now!!

      (it's so infuriating I can't help but being facetious.. sorry)
    • There is no conflict of interest here. I'm sure that Microsoft has instructed Mr. Wallis as to exactly what his interests should be. Besides, it's not like this is news [salon.com] or anything. ;-)

  • And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @05:45PM (#8214114)
    Josef Mengele will be taking over as the new Director of the American Red Cross.
    • And Darl McBride will take over maintances of kernel 2.6.
    • No, the case isn't similar. MS is seeking to avoid punishment for a crime of which it is already convicted, whereas Mengle evaded trial through the efforts of the Red Cross.

      So in his case it would merely be repaying a debt already acquired, not to curry future influence.

      You won't find many Jews over a certain age that will give one penney to the Red Cross.

      KFG

  • So what? (Score:5, Funny)

    by 0x54524F4C4C ( 712971 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @05:45PM (#8214118)

    Bush and Blair were nominated for the nobel peace award.
    • Bush and Blair were nominated for the nobel peace award.
      So was Hitler.

      • Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)

        by EinarH ( 583836 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @07:03PM (#8214623) Journal
        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.

    • Re:So what? (Score:3, Informative)

      by gizmonic ( 302697 ) *
      And Yassar Arafat was awarded [nobel.se] one. So that prize doesn't mean shit.

  • Mr. Fox? Paging Mr. Fox! (Score:5, Funny)

    by bc90021 ( 43730 ) * <bc90021 AT bc90021 DOT net> on Saturday February 07, 2004 @05:46PM (#8214123) Homepage
    Mr. Fox, would you be so kind as to go to that henhouse and guard those chickens? Thank you, that is all. ;)

  • I heard this story before... (Score:1, Insightful)

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

  • Does it really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Marx_Mrvelous ( 532372 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @05:47PM (#8214139) Homepage
    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? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I somehow doubt he's still on MS's payroll anymore. I wonder whether he still has his stock options?
    • 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...[snip]

      I think those things are irrelevent. While at MS either he was doing things that he disliked and thought were wrong, or he was in favor of those actions. If he thought they were wrong, what kind of guy is he to work and support them for so long. If he supported them, how in the world can he be the guy that we want in that position.

      The only possible defense that I ca

    • Re:Does it really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gaijin99 ( 143693 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @06:31PM (#8214406) Journal
      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.

      • Have you considered the possibility that there might have been an antitrust case where the coorporation being sued was not guilty of monopoly practices?

        • Have you considered the possibility that there might have been an antitrust case where the coorporation being sued was not guilty of monopoly practices?

          Its vaguely possible, I suppose. I rather doubt it, but its possible. I'm inclined to think the worst in any corporate situation, I'll admit that up front. I tend to think my attitude is backlash against the rather obscene amount of power that the megacorporations have, but it might cloud my judgement sometimes.

          Let's say that instead of automaticall


  • 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...

  • How appropriate. They've ended up putting a rabbit in charge of guarding the carrot patch...

    ---

  • My sig (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Almost-Retired ( 637760 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @05:58PM (#8214209) Homepage
    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)
    • It's not gonna happen. Have you noticed how M$ is now going for the Educational institutions? They are programming the mindless public, even from childhood.

      An unnamed educator at my school, who used to be a UNIX demigod, is now pushing that all of the CS classes use M$ technology for teaching. At first I was pissed at him, but now I understand that he has no choice - unless these kids learn to use M$ development tools, they most likely WILL NOT get jobs after graduation.

      It will only get worse from her
      • It will only get worse from here.

        I feel sorry for the kids mostly, because unless they really like to read, and have unlimited access to the internet, they will not see the effects of the pendulum swing until its too late, and they have a head full of knowledge only marginally usefull in their future job market.

        The pendulum is indeed swinging, and it certainly isn't toward M$.

        That un-named educator should be relieved of his post and salary, he is doing his students a dis-service, the roots of which are

  • What does the position do? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BoneFlower ( 107640 ) <anniethebruce@ g m a i l . c om> on Saturday February 07, 2004 @05:59PM (#8214222) Journal
    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?

  • Is it such a problem, really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rallion ( 711805 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @06:06PM (#8214262) Journal
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposerNO@SPAMalum.mit.edu> on Saturday February 07, 2004 @06:07PM (#8214264) Homepage

    According to this AP item [usatoday.com] 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.

    • If that's the case then why did the MS lawyers argue for the oversight in the first place? I mean they argue for not being broken up, so when some oversight is ordered in place of break up they then get the board to condemn that as judical "overreach"....very funny. I wonder how the judge will take to the ABA telling her how to do her job on MS behalf? I guess her only action now is to close down MS!!!
  • Give the ABA feedback, slashdot style: http://www.abanet.org/scripts/contactmail.jsp?to=q uestions [abanet.org]

  • Er (Score:1)

    by mog007 ( 677810 )
    If anybody is more qualified than Microsoft in Antitrust matters, I'm sure Mr. Gates is on his way to that person's home to try and recruit them. Blantently_obvious();

  • also this (Score:2, Funny)

    by benjonson ( 204985 )
    In other news, MSNBC is reporting that the American Bar Association's Hen House will now be run by I. M. Foxxe.

  • My best friend is a "socialist". I used to think he was an idiot. Politically anyway.

    Now I think he may be right.

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

        I really don't see how it uses it for "good", and you sure don't back it up with logic. I'm not a proponent of communism or socialism, but just like the communist organizers will and do apportion themselves much more in terms of resources, what do you think big business executives do?

  • This is just silly (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Reality Master 101 ( 179095 ) <RealityMaster101@gmail. c o m> on Saturday February 07, 2004 @06:22PM (#8214348) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Right guy for the job! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rehabdoll ( 221029 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @06:24PM (#8214358) Homepage
    He sure got experience.

  • The Civil courts remain another avenue of Justice (Score:4, Informative)

    by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @06:24PM (#8214361) Homepage Journal
    Judge orders Gates to pretrial questioning [nwsource.com]
    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.

  • In all fairness, all to many people believe in an unworkable system called copyrights that suggests that people have some kind of moral right to restrict what other people copy. Then Microsoft abuses this system to become corrupt and powerfull. Then all of a sudden these same people get in a huff that Microsoft is unjust and monopolistic. Well WTF, why don't we just admit that copyrights are garbage and try to rid ourselves of them, and stop spewing out old worn and unproven propaganda on faith that cop

  • *harumph* (Score:1, Redundant)

    by jmb-d ( 322230 )
    Does this strike anyone else as the fox guarding the henhouse?
  • This is clearly illegal. Microsoft is using their monopoly power in crooked business to gain a foothold in the lucrative crooked politics arena.

  • Just perfect. (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by sgage ( 109086 )
    This portrays in a nutshell what is wrong with the Corporate States of America. The foxes are always put in charge of guarding the henhouses.

    The Founding Fathers would be appalled at the state of the Union today.

  • ridiculous Wired snippet... (Score:5, Informative)

    by odin53 ( 207172 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @06:45PM (#8214497)
    Try reading the whole AP article [salon.com] 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 isn't really a big deal (Score:5, Informative)

    by n8ur ( 230546 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @07:14PM (#8214705) Homepage
    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.
    • The ABA Antitrust section has been pro-business, anti-enforcement forever, so this is really no big deal.

      Fine, that may represent the priciples of those involved.

      This move casts doubts on those priciples and the integrity of the organization in general. It proves that their volunteer professional organization can be taken over by a representative from a company and used to do that company's buisness. Moreover, it looks like you can do this at the last minute with little planning. They should avoid the

  • It'd be difficult... (Score:3, Funny)

    by darnok ( 650458 ) on Saturday February 07, 2004 @07:33PM (#8214803)
    to find an anti-trust lawyer who hasn't worked for or against Microsoft these days, wouldn't it?
    • I think there's still one in North Korea, but I'm not sure the American Bar Association really wants a chairman walking around with a fully automatic weapon and handgrenades strapped to his uniform. We can always hope.

      -
  • So ABBA has their own anti-trust lawyers?
    Must be Money-Money-Money.
  • The fox was nominated to the board that oversees the henhouse.
  • Isn't that a bit like putting the wolves in charge of the sheep?

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close