3 ms·
Thank you for posting that link. It made for good reading over my morning coffee. While I am not a lawyer either, my reading is that you have quoted from a se
by pohl 14y ago
Thank you for posting that link. It made for good reading over my morning coffee.
While I am not a lawyer either, my reading is that you have quoted from a section of the document pertaining to a claimed violation (in the Conclusions of Law) that are with regard to § 2 of the Sherman act (monopoly maintenace), whereas aresant's question is with respect to product tying, which is a § 1 violation, which was merely remanded – and, eventually, dropped.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago>While I am not a lawyer either, my reading is that you have quoted from a section of the document pertaining to a claimed violation (in the Conclusions of Law) that are with regard to § 2 of the Sherman act (monopoly maintenace), whereas aresant's question is with respect to product tying, which is a § 1 violation, which was merely remanded – and, eventually, dropped. OK sure. And "remand" means the trial judge made mistakes and has to try again, not that they did everything right. When they do substantially everything right it will say "affirmed" and then that part of the case is over (or gets appealed to a higher court instead of going back down). And as you already pointed out, the case being settled/dropped probably had a lot more to do with politics and the incoming Bush administration than anything to do with the court system or the law or whether the original district judge was right or wrong.