3 ms·
> So that the consent agreements and cases arose as a result of antitrust regulations is true. But when you say "the legal theories of when and how to apply ant
by pessimizer 3y ago
> So that the consent agreements and cases arose as a result of antitrust regulations is true. But when you say "the legal theories of when and how to apply antitrust regulations" has changed, that is not supported by the consent agreement because those agreements are not enforcements of antitrust regulations.
You seem to be implying complete independence between something being the results of antitrust regulations, the results of the enforcement of antitrust regulations, or the consequences of theories of how when to enforce antitrust regulations. For people who speculate that these three things might be related to each other, your argument will not work.
- fngjdflmdflg 3y agoIt was the result of antitrust regulations only inasmuch as it caused the government to begin legal proceedings against AT&T. It isn't the result of antitrust regulations in the legal sense, just the result of those antitrust regulations existing because had they not existed then there would be no case against AT&T and therefore no settlement. But those results were not an instance of antitrust regulation legally occurring. Certainly not within the sense I initially referred to it which was a regulation such that it could still be used today ("I thought GGP was referring to a real regulation that was later removed"). We can call the AT&T case a "one time regulation" in that it is not a law but was still carried out by the government even if technically optionally accepted by AT&T. But this is certainly different from a "real" regulation which is a written rule that takes affect every time the conditions of the rule are met, which was not the case in AT&T.