Randall Munroe has a point. Funny how all government antitrust prosecutions under Section 2 in the last 75 years look silly in hindsight. I'd call it the revenge of Robert Bork, except Bork was on the wrong side in the Microsoft case.
Antitrust and technology in the 1990s
Related Entries:
- CAFA violation in Korean Air Passenger settlement
- Sullivan v. DB Investments: Judge Jordan's dissent was right
- Comcast v. Behrend
- New Featured Discussion - Class Actions and Arbitration: American Express v. Italian Colors
- Still more on Bork
- Pecover v. Electronic Arts class action settlement objection
- Cert grant in American Express v. Italian Colors
- Kansas Supreme Court attempts to dictate national antitrust policy
- Around the web, April 11
- Regulators at cross-purposes
- Plaintiffs' lawyers protect their cartel by bringing antitrust suit
- Frank v. Fitzpatrick: I get to say "told you so!"
- CCAF Second Circuit brief in Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.
- Around the web, December 15
Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.