Microsoft Corp. will pay AOL Time Warner $750 million and let the media company license its browsing software for seven years in a settlement to resolve an antitrust lawsuit against the software giant, the companies announced Thursday.

The settlement also calls for Microsoft to license its digital media technology to AOL, as well as work with the company to promote digital media initiatives.

Microsoft will provide technical information to AOL to ensure that its products run effectively on the Windows operating system.

The agreement resolves a lawsuit AOL filed against Microsoft in January 2002 on behalf of its subsidiary, Netscape Communications. The complaint was one of several private antitrust lawsuits still pending against Microsoft over anticompetitive behavior.

AOL had alleged in the lawsuit that Microsoft used anticompetitive business practices to ensure the dominance of its Internet Explorer browsing software over Netscape's software. AOL argued that Microsoft made deals with computer manufacturers and others to shut out Netscape and quash competition.

Florida officials issued more than 800,000 temporary licenses and/or driving permits - without photographs - in the past five years to individuals in a variety of different categories. Convicted drunk drivers with revoked licenses are legally allowed to drive in Florida using only driving permits without photographs, as are foreign nationals, those who failed their eye or written exams and military personnel.

Turns out the Florida woman who is suing for the right to wear a Muslim headdress in a driver's license photograph has previously been subjected to an, um, unveiled government portrait. Following her 1997 conversion to Islam, Sultaana Freeman (formerly Sandra Keller) was arrested in Decatur, Illinois for battering a foster child. Freeman, 35, pleaded guilty in 1999 to felony aggravated battery and was sentenced to 18 months probation. As a result of the conviction, state officials removed two foster children from Freeman's care.

For better or worse, professional baseball has long enjoyed an exemption from the antitrust laws. The scope of this exemption – a judge-made rule premised upon dubious rationales and labeled an “aberration” by the Supreme Court – has been the subject of extensive litigation over the years. In this case, we are called upon to address two key issues: (1) the effect of the federal rule upon state antitrust law and (2) whether the exemption extends beyond antitrust prosecutions into the realm of mere investigations. With regard to the first issue, we hold that the federal exemption preempts state antitrust law. As for the second issue, we hold that the Florida Attorney General cannot proceed with the investigation in this case. This holding is based upon the Fourth Amendment and state law rather than the antitrust exemption. In this vein, our analysis differs significantly from that of the district court, although we ultimately affirm its decision.

Any discussion of whether Congress meant to immunize the business of Baseball from all antitrust law (as opposed to federal antitrust law) is, of course, fanciful because Congress never conveyed its preference one way or the other. The exemption is entirely judge-made, although some decisions have attempted to cloak this disturbing fact in the language of Congressional intent.

IUPUI has agreed to refund about $500,000 to more than 46,000 current and former students to avoid prosecution for alleged price-fixing at its bookstores.

"To learn that such activity might have occurred is unacceptable, and we are implementing a restitution plan immediately," Cheryl Sullivan, vice chancellor of external affairs for the campus in downtown Indianapolis, told the Indianapolis Star for a story Friday.

The alleged price fixing between IUPUI's bookstores and an unidentified bookstore covered an 18-month period that ended in December.

Officials at IUPUI discovered the possible price fixing during a routine audit in November and reported it to the U.S. Justice Department's Antitrust Division later that month, said Susan Rivas, an attorney for the Indianapolis law firm Ice Miller.

The Justice Department granted IUPUI conditional amnesty under a program that allows businesses and organizations that report antitrust activity and cooperate with the government's investigation to avoid fines or prosecution, Rivas said.

The bookstores allegedly eliminated a 10 percent discount on new health sciences textbooks and imposed a 2 percent price increase on all new textbooks.

Under the restitution plan, students enrolled in classes anytime from July 2001 through December 2002 will receive an average of less than $5 in credit or refunds. Some students will get as little as 24 cents; two will get the highest payment, $170.

House Republicans are attempting to lift long-standing restrictions on a $1 billion anti-drug advertising program in a move that would allow the White House to use taxpayer funds to engage in partisan political activities and campaign against candidates or ballot measures favoring the legalization of drugs.

The provision was quietly tucked into a bill reauthorizing the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and is set for markup today before the House Government Reform Committee.

Currently, the office and its director, who is commonly referred to as the drug czar, are barred by law from using their annual $195 million anti-drug advertising budget for partisan, political purposes.

Under language included in a reauthorization bill authored by Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), the prohibition would be lifted when the ONDCP director is acting to oppose an attempt to legalize the use of any illegal drug. The measure was approved last week by the Government Reform subcommittee on criminal justice, drug policy and human resources.

As written, the provision would allow partisan radio, print and television ads if the purpose were to oppose the legalization of drug use. Critics said that any candidate or political party that adopts a position promoting such reforms as allowing the medical use of marijuana or reducing drug sentencing provisions could face a government-sponsored advertising campaign against them in the electoral battlefield.

Last year, for example, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) sponsored legislation that would limit federal intervention aimed at states or localities that adopted ballot measures less restrictive than current law in dealing with marijuana use. Under the eased advertising restrictions, the drug-control office could presumably use television ads against Frank, critics of the proposal said.

Aetna Inc. Thursday broke ranks with other major health insurers, announcing a $470-million settlement of a suit filed by 700,000 doctors.

The physicians said the settlement would allow them greater flexibility in offering comprehensive care and make it easier to refer patients to specialists. They had charged Aetna with unfairly reducing payments and denying patients' coverage.

The eight other giant health insurers, however, said they would continue to fight the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Miami by the doctors who joined together as a class last September.

Representatives for the doctors and Hartford, Conn.-based Aetna, the nation's third-largest health insurer, said physicians and patients covered by the insurer would soon have wider rights to appeal the company's decisions regarding payments and coverage. Doctors involved in the suit said the settlement must be signed by U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno in Miami before it becomes effective.

Wisconsin fitness centers can bar men or women from joining their clubs under a bill Gov. Jim Doyle signed Monday that exempts the gyms from the state's anti-discrimination laws.

Doyle said he hoped the legislation would encourage more people to exercise regularly, pointing out women lobbied for the bill because they said they felt more comfortable working out at a fitness center that caters only to them.

"Government should do everything we can to encourage physical fitness and if this bill can help encourage women to exercise by offering a supportive environment, then it deserves our support," Doyle said.

Wisconsin law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on sex, race, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry.

The law creates a narrow exception for fitness centers.

It defines a fitness center as a place "that provides as its primary purpose services or facilities that are purported to assist patrons in physical exercise, in weight control, or in figure development."

Sen. Judy Robson, D-Beloit, opposed the bill, fearing someone could use the definition to justify a men-only golf course or similar venture.

She said the legislation opens the door to discrimination and creates the possibility it will spread to other public accommodations.

"Women have fought for years to end gender discrimination, especially in athletics," Robson said. "Now that we have arrived at almost full equality, this could set us back."

PORTLAND, Maine - A federal judge plans to rule next week on the proposed settlement of a music antitrust lawsuit that would put roughly $12.60 in the pockets of 3.5 million consumers.

Judge D. Brock Hornby heard testimony for more than three hours Thursday on the fairness of the agreement that calls for music distributors and retailers to pay $143 million in cash and compact disks.

Terms of the settlement call for checks to be mailed to 3.5 million people who filed claims under the class-action lawsuit. The actual amount depends on how much money goes to lawyers and distribution fees.

The payout would culminate an antitrust suit that was started by prosecutors in several states in 1996.

The lawsuit, signed by the attorneys general of 43 states and territories and consolidated in Portland in October 2000, accused major record labels and large music retailers facing competition from discount retailers like Target and Wal-Mart of conspiring to set minimum music prices.

The defendants — Sony Music Entertainment, EMI Music Distribution, Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corp., Universal Music Group and Bertelsmann Music Group, as well as retailers Tower Records, Musicland Stores and Transworld Entertainment — deny any wrongdoing. Attorneys representing the companies declined to testify in court.

Of the total settlement amount, $75.7 million would be distributed in the form of 5.6 million music CDs sent to libraries and schools throughout the nation.

The proposed cash settlement in the case totals $67.3 million.The actual cash distributed to the public is expected to be around $44 million. Payments should be mailed out within weeks of the settlement's approval. The remaining cash will be eaten up by distribution costs and attorney fees.

The United States would be strengthened at home and abroad by a fresh emphasis on public service, Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday, as he outlined a citizenship program whose hallmark would be a free public-college education for anyone who spends two years as a volunteer.

The Democratic presidential contender, speaking first at an American Legion post and later at the prep school he attended, also proposed a federally mandated -- but locally designed -- requirement for public service by high schoolers; a ''Retired but not Tired'' work program for senior citizens; a ''Summer of Service'' program for teenagers not yet old enough to work; almost a quadrupling of the Peace Corps from 6,700 to 25,000 volunteers; and a recruitment drive led by the commander in chief to expand the ranks of the US military.

The Massachusetts senator accused President Bush of failing to quench a public thirst for service in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and of not fulfilling his campaign promise to ''rally the armies of compassion.'' Kerry's program would cost an estimated $3.2 billion annually, which he said could be paid by closing more than $60 billion in corporate tax loopholes.

R. Hewitt Pate yesterday moved closer to becoming the permanent chief of the Justice Department's antitrust division when he breezed through a Senate confirmation hearing.

Pate, 40, has been acting assistant attorney general for antitrust since November, when Charles A. James left the job. Pate is less of a lightning rod than James, whose handling of the government's settlement with Microsoft Corp. was criticized by some technology companies and members of Congress.

Pate was asked few controversial questions at yesterday's two-hour Judiciary Committee hearing. Senators repeatedly implored Pate to guard against a spate of media mergers and acquisitions after the Federal Communications Commission relaxes ownership rules in the industry, as it is expected to do next month.

"The antitrust division will stand as our last line of defense against excessive media concentration," said Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.).

Pate stressed that the Justice Department, under the Sherman Antitrust Act, would narrowly review such deals for their potential economic impact on local markets, rather than for their effect on television and radio programming.

"I can certainly assure you we will be in place and if there are transactions that present anticompetitive problems we will stop them," Pate said. "When we step in, that may, as a byproduct, also preserve a diversity of voices and that's all for the good."

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) pressed Pate to speed up an investigation of Orbitz LLC, which runs a discount travel Web site controlled by five major airlines. Three years ago, the antitrust division opened an investigation of Orbitz, citing a guarantee that airlines would offer their lowest fares on the site.

"Sounds to me on its face like a restraint of trade," Specter said.

Pate said upheaval in the airline industry and "the post-September 11 environment" complicated the antitrust review. "I can assure you we're not sitting on it," he said. "It's just as important to get the right result as to move quickly in those investigations."

Pate said the division will "continue to be vigilant" in making sure that Microsoft lives up to the terms of its settlement. He declined to discuss about other pending cases, including a review of a $6 billion deal that would give News Corp., one of the world's largest owners of television networks, control of Hughes Electronics Corp.'s DirecTV, the biggest U.S. satellite television service.

The Judiciary Committee could vote today on Pate's nomination. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), the committee chairman, signaled that confirmation was not in question. "I'm totally in support of your nomination," Hatch said. "It's one of the best nominations we could possibly have."

Hewitt Pate, acting head of the Justice Department's antitrust division, says the new white-collar sentencing law means a price fixer previously eligible for a three-year sentence could now get 23 years if he is also convicted of obstructing justice. Pate says this should get the attention of potential corporate offenders: "Even very large fines imposed on corporations may be seen as a cost of doing business. Prison sentences are the single most effective deterrent."

A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a judge's dismissal of Cavalier Telephone's $635 million antitrust lawsuit against Verizon Virginia.

Cavalier, a Richmond-based company that sells local telephone service in competition with Verizon, alleged that Verizon had engaged in anticompetitive conduct aimed at reducing or eliminating Cavalier's ability to reach customers and raising its costs of competing with Verizon.

U.S. District Judge James R. Spencer dismissed the lawsuit in March 2002, ruling that the conduct cited by Cavalier amounted to federal Telecommunications Act violations "dressed up in antitrust garb." The 1996 Telecommunications Act laid the groundwork for competition for local telephone service.

In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Spencer. Judge Paul V. Niemeyer wrote in the majority opinion that "Cavalier's recourse is to the procedures and remedies afforded by the Telecommunications Act, not to those afforded by the antitrust laws."

Judge Morton I. Greenberg, a member of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was called in to hear the case, dissented. He wrote that while he agreed with much of the majority's opinion, Cavalier stated a claim that warranted further court proceedings.

Cavalier had alleged that Verizon was violating various federal anti-monopoly laws and telecommunications regulations and had breached an interconnection agreement. The lawsuit also claimed violations of the state's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, interference with contracts and economic advantage, and intentional misrepresentation.

KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, with whom PREGERSON, REINHARDT, T.G. NELSON, HAWKINS, THOMAS, McKEOWN, WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc:

For over half a century, Consumers Union has been testing and rating consumer products and publishing the results in its magazine, Consumer Reports. A significant portion of the American public relies on CU’s ratings on a regular basis, and almost everyone consults Consumer Reports now and then before making a significant purchase—whether a sound system, a dishwasher or a car. What makes CU’s ratings particularly useful is the thorough explanation of the testing procedures employed, which lets consumers judge whether the ratings fairly represent the product.

The Suzuki Samurai article, the subject of this lawsuit, is no exception. Running some 6500 words, it tells readers precisely how CU came to conclude that “The Suzuki rolls over too easily,” starting with an incident during the vehicle’s break-in period where the Samurai “flopped over on its side” during a low-speed maneuver. The explanation is not written for morons; like other CU reviews, it is geared to an intelligent, informed consumer. Yet the careful reader will not fail to understand the central facts that undergird Suzuki’s claim in this lawsuit, namely, that the Samurai did well on CU’s standard course, that CU then modified the course to make it more challenging and, as a result, the Samurai did far worse than its competitors.

I find it incomprehensible that a review truthfully disclosing all this information could be deemed malicious under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). If CU can be forced to go to trial after this thorough and candid disclosure of its methods, this is the death of consumer ratings: It will be impossible to issue a meaningful consumer review that a band of determined lawyers can’t pick apart in front of a jury. The ultimate losers will be American consumers denied access to independent information about the safety and usefulness of products they buy with their hard-earned dollars. The majority sets a dangerous precedent, and the full court errs
grievously by failing to take the case en banc to correct the error.

The Department of Justice today said that it cleared a proposal by Texas-based BroChem Marketing Inc. (BroChem) to establish a computer database aimed at giving chemical distributors efficient access to the information they need when marketing chemicals sold to them by chemical producers. The Department approved the proposal after BroChem agreed to make substantial modifications to address the Department's competitive concerns.

"The database could produce procompetitive efficiencies by making it easier for chemical distributors to access information and eliminating a large percentage of time-consuming, costly telephonic communications between chemical producers and distributors," said R. Hewitt Pate, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division.

The Department's position was stated in a business review letter from Pate to counsel for BroChem.

According to the Department's business review letter, BroChem modified its original proposal by agreeing to establish computer safeguards to ensure that price-sensitive information is not accessible to competitors or others who should not have access to it. In addition, BroChem modified its proposal to ensure that the database will not include information added by BroChem that could facilitate price coordination.

The announcement represented an about-face for the administration, which said in March it could not accept several key provisions of the draft accord related to packaging, labeling, advertising and sales, among other things.

Formally called the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the world's first treaty on health seeks to tackle the consequences of tobacco use with measures ranging from a halt in advertising to a crackdown on smuggling and a ban on cigarette sales to minors.

The United States, along with Germany, had opposed a clause to ban advertising, saying it would violate constitutional guarantees to free speech.

Asked whether he would push for any changes to the pact, [HHS Secretary Tommy] Thompson said, "No, we're not going to seek any changes or any reservations."

Gary Bauer, president of American Values and a Republican presidential contender in 2000, declared, "The land of Israel was originally owned by God. Since He was the owner, only He could give it away. And He gave it to the Jewish people."

Calling the peace proposal "a Satanic road map," Earl Cox, executive producer and host of Front Page Jerusalem, a radio program, asked, "Do any of you believe [Palestinian leader] Yasser Arafat will embrace traditional family values? There will be a mosque on all the holy sites. How can anyone who's a Jew or a Christian support such a proposal?"

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by SBC Communications Inc. involving a $20 million judgment for violation of Oklahoma's antitrust laws, according to a Dow Jones news report.

SBC subsidiary Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. was sued by several smaller pay phone companies under Oklahoma's antitrust laws. The companies alleged that SBC had locked up the local pay phone market by reaching restrictive contracts with the owners of the pay phone locations.

SBC spokesman Walt Sharp says the telecommunications giant continues to believe that it did nothing wrong.

"SBC continues to believe that we have acted properly in all matters related to payphone competition in Oklahoma and everywhere else in our region of coverage," Sharp says. "We have complied with the terms of the judgment (in January) and it has been settled."

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver denied SBC's appeal of the judgment last year.

Since the Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that outright bans on lawyer advertising are unconstitutional, every state has grappled with what lawyers may say about themselves.

The high court allows restraint on ads that are false, deceptive or misleading. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

The proposed regulations "attempt to implement the Kentucky Supreme Court's rules by defining 'false, misleading and deceptive,'" said Benjamin Cowgill, chief counsel for the Kentucky Bar Association.

One regulation, for example, says that if an ad speaks to monetary recovery it "must include an appropriate explanation of the legal requirements" to win and must say "that recovery may be dependent on the ability to collect from the responsible party."

The dispute, however, is not just about what kinds of commercial speech can be proscribed under the First Amendment. The real flap is about an 11-year-old rule that some attorneys say amounts to an illegal prior restraint of commercial speech.

Since 1992, the Kentucky Supreme Court has required lawyers to submit certain kinds of advertising for pre-approval to the Bar's Attorney Advertising Commission.

"That's prior restraint," said Lucian Pera, an attorney who represents Louisville, Ky.'s Becker Law Office. "And that's unconstitutional."

The president may not want to endorse gay marriage; but there are concrete measures he could take to strike a centrist position. The most obvious would be to endorse the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would give gays the same workplace protections as other minorities. 88 percent of the country endorses this. It's a simple case of workplace fairness. It doesn't involve any approval of homosexual sex, since this is about public workplaces. It could and should exempt religious groups. And it would be a huge sign to the center of the country that Bush is actually an inclusive and compassionate president. I've had my libertarian doubts about such laws in the past; but I cannot see any reason why they should apply to every other group - including religious denominations - but not to gays.

On Thursday, April 17, 2003, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed consent order (proposed order) with the Institute of Store Planners (ISP), a New York-based association composed of approximately 860 members. ISP’s members include various professionals who design and construct retail store interiors. ISP maintains a voluntary ethics code which is the subject of the FTC’s complaint and proposed order.

The complaint alleges three provisions of the ISP ethics code violate Section 5 of the FTC Act, which generally prohibit “unfair methods of competition.” The challenged provisions, according to the complaint, are as follows:

1. “a member shall not render professional services without compensation.”



2. “a member shall not knowingly compete with another member on the basis of professional charges, or use donations as a device for obtaining professional advantage.”



3. “a member shall not offer his services in a competition except as provided by such competition codes as the Institute may establish.”

The FTC claims these statements, taken alone and without context, injured the legal rights of consumers by “discouraging and restricting price competition,” thus depriving consumers of “the benefit of free and open competition among store planners.”

The proposed order addresses the FTC’s concerns by forcing ISP to amend its ethics code and other governing documents to reflect FTC viewpoints. Specifically, the order prohibits ISP from “[r]egulating, restricting, impeding, declaring unethical or unprofessional, interfering with or advising against price competition by its members, including, but not limited to, the provision of free or discounted services or restricting members from offering their services in a competition unless they conform to rules or regulations established by ISP.”

The FTC alleges the mere existence of certain provisions of ISP’s ethics code constitutes a legal harm to consumers. The Commission’s complaint states ISP engaged in “unfair competition” under the FTC Act by “discouraging and restricting price competition among store planners,” and by denying consumers “the benefit of free and open competition among store planners.” Both of these statements are false. ISP never restricted legitimate competition among its members, and consumers suffered no demonstrable injury.

Since the FTC refuses to provide any context for ISP’s ethics code (or even a complete copy of the code itself), the public is left with little useful information to assess the Commission’s claims of anticompetitive behavior. Nevertheless, CVT’s independent investigation into ISP’s affairs turned up some useful information. CVT has determined that ISP’s ethics code was never intended, or applied, as an agreement to restrict competition in any manner. Rather, ISP adopted its current ethics code in the 1960’s as a means to advise members on how to avoid potentially illegal activities. The code is purely advisory in nature, and has never been enforced with respect to the provisions now challenged by the FTC. Any suggestion by the Commission to the contrary is simply untrue.

In case the FTC needs reminding, the First Amendment forbids the federal government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble.” The amendment applies to all agencies and instruments of the government, including the FTC, and no affirmative grant of power under the Constitution can be interpreted so as to override, restrict, or impede the First Amendment’s protections. This includes Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce under Article I, Section 8, which power Congress created the FTC under. Thus, the FTC cannot suspend the First Amendment simply be alleging ISP engaged in “unfair competition” or acted to injure consumers. The antitrust laws are not a license to censor private acts of speech.

Yet censorship is the explicit function of the proposed consent order. ISP is forbidden from so much as “declaring unethical or unprofessional” certain acts the FTC considers sacrosanct. The effect of this is to criminalize the opinions of those who disagree with the FTC, since the Commission is essentially restricting the fundamental liberty rights of ISP and its members. Such acts go far beyond the government’s constitutional power, and they even exceed the intent and scope of the FTC Act. ISP’s members did not commit fraud or engage in false advertising, actions which might justly incur the FTC’s wrath. Instead, ISP is being targeted for forming an opinion on ethical matters, and having the nerve to actually say it out loud. In this sense, the FTC is not just assaulting First Amendment liberties, but the basic ability of individuals to think and act upon their mind’s judgment. Such vicious assaults may have had a place in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the Torquemada’s Inquisition, but not in 21st Century America.

In the FTC’s recent annual review, the Commission tried to spin their attack on private ethics codes as a noble cause:

The FTC pursued significant investigations involving the rules of conduct for various professional associations. Agreements among professionals that limit competition among themselves, often under the guise of professional association by-laws or codes of conduct, harm consumers much like “smoke-filled room” conspiracies.

This paragraph is utter nonsense. All three of the recent professional association cases involved ethics codes that were publicly known for years, if not decades. The FTC never presented any evidence which shows these organizations did anything behind closed doors in an underhanded manner. If anything, it is the FTC which operates as a “smoke-filled room” conspiracy by routinely coercing defendants into signing consent orders, then presenting the public with an inaccurate view of the persecuted groups. Beyond that, the FTC takes every precaution to avoid having to explain their actions. For example, the FTC has never responded to CVT’s comments opposing the NAA and AICHAW settlements. Nor has the Commission, in this case or the two previous ones, provided even basic evidence to establish any consumer was harmed by the respondents’ allegedly illegal conduct.

It seems that this case, and the other “smoke-filled room” cases, is nothing more than a smoke-screen for the FTC’s real agenda, which is protecting the agency’s budget from congressional scrutiny. According to the FTC’s own “Performance Review,” the Commission has a quota of “45 to 70 nonmerger investigations” per year. This means the FTC is tying their own success rate to the number of businesses successfully prosecuted for antitrust violations. Meeting this quota allows the FTC to justify current funding levels to congressional appropriators, and allows the Commission to claim a substantial record of accomplishment to the public at-large.

But as demonstrated in this case, the FTC’s “accomplishment” reflects little more than the Commission’s ability to coerce respondents into signing a consent order. As the FTC itself admits: “A law enforcement agency that prevails in every litigated matter may do so because it pursue only the cases that are easiest to win.” Here, the FTC pursued a small professional society in an industry of limited scope and influence, and effectively bullied said group into renouncing their First Amendment rights. This is not the proper mission of a law enforcement agency, and it certainly is not the actions of a government that is supposed to uphold individual rights as society’s basic organizing principle.

Dear Mr. Oliva:

This responds to your recent Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") appeal, which was received in this office on April 14, 2003. By letter dated January 31, 2003, you had requested access to: 1) line-item budgets for the Bureau of Competition for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002; and 2) records detailing the Bureau of Competition's expenditures in relation to seven specific matters during this same time frame. By letter dated March 27, 2003, Ms. Joan Fina granted your request in part, providing you with a one-page table reflecting the "dollars used" in FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002, on five of the seven matters you specified. Citing FOIA Exemption 7(A), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A), she redacted from this chart the figures reflecting dollars spent on the other two specified matters. You have appealed this determination. Because I agree that the material that Ms. Fina withheld was protected by Exemption 7(A), I am denying your appeal.

The information that you requested about the MSC Software Corporation matter, Docket No. 9299, was, and continues to be, protected by FOIA Exemption 7(A), which protects information compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. See Robbins Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 214 (1978). With respect to the National Academy of Arbitrators matter, File No. 0110242, however, I am exercising my discretion to release the redacted figures because, according to the attorneys assigned to that matter, very recent developments have made it less likely that releasing this information could reasonably be expected to interfere with the case. Thus, while it is clear that this material was exempt at the time of Ms. Fina's determination on your FOIA request, it appears to no longer be exempt.

Consider: Anyone can write anything on a bathroom wall. There's little accountability on a bathroom wall. It's hard to tell who wrote what on a bathroom wall. Truth looks just like rumor on a bathroom wall. Great stuff is interspersed with awful, stupid stuff on a bathroom wall.

Most people know instinctively not to offer as verification or a point of information the phrase "Well, you know, I read on the bathroom wall that. . ." Yet far too many seem willing to lace their discourse and communications with "facts" gleaned from bulletin boards, e-mail and Web sites.

The sad fact, which I've noted in many posts over the past year (and even setting aside egregious examples like the Jayson Blair affair), is that most media turn out to be a bathroom wall, too. An exaggeration, but less of an exaggeration that I'd like it to be.

"Greetings from Snellville, Georgia!" Chuck and Linda Moseley write to Washington landlord Peter Kelley, whose name is listed in a directory of apartments on Capitol Hill.

"Our son is a rising senior at the University of Georgia. He has been chosen as a full-time Intern for [Georgia Republican] Congressman John Linder beginning Sept. 1, 2003, and ending Dec. 12, 2003. Please advise availability and any additional information you require. We will not be able to visit D.C. until after June 5, 2003 due to his classes. Thank you for your time."

Nice enough letter from the proud parents.

"Hello Moseleys," Mr. Kelley writes back. "Thank you for contacting us about your son staying at the Loj during his internship. I'm usually very encouraging of young people doing congressional internships and staying here while they do them.

"However, I do have to say that as a full-time employee of an environmental group, and as someone personally quite alarmed about the direction that Congress and the president are taking with the environment, I have concerns about Rep. Linder's record.

"He has a 5 percent score on the League of Conservation Voters environmental scorecard, and his Web site lists the following votes, all of which I deeply disagree with: Voted NO on raising CAFE standards, incentives for alternative fuels (Aug 2001); Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR (Aug 2001); Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol (Jun 2000).

"I am torn," concludes Mr. Kelley, "because I hope that your son will have a wonderful experience in Washington and I know that working for any congressman, even one with Rep. Linder's views, will be an invaluable experience that he will treasure his entire career.

"However, I would not feel right about having someone stay at our place who was working to advance views such as these, which I believe amount to abandoning our responsibility to future generations. And so I must decline your request for a room here."

"By arguably treating the mere hearing of prayer as tantamount to participating in it, the decision jeopardizes prayer in any governmental setting," Kilgore wrote in the petition to the Court. "For example, in this Court -- as in the Supreme Court -- each session begins with a brief invocation. No one is required to close his eyes or bow her head. If hearing -- or standing -- is the same as participating, it is difficult to explain how these invocations could be constitutional."

Kilgore pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court never has addressed the constitutionality of prayer in university or military college settings -- only the question of school-sponsored prayer in kindergarten through 12th grade.

"It is not just the military colleges that will be affected," Kilgore wrote. "By implicitly equating institutions of higher education with grades K-through-12, the panel opinion is written in terms so sweeping as to jeopardize the ability of any public college to include an invocation or benediction at any ceremony -- including graduation ceremonies."

Six months after a federal settlement was ordered to remedy Microsoft Corp.'s anti-competitive conduct, two states, several business rivals and some users still say the software company wields too much power in the marketplace.

Attorneys General Thomas Reilly of Massachusetts and Darrell McGraw of West Virginia are continuing the battle for tough antitrust remedies after the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved the settlement last year. In a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week, the states argued that the remedies do not stop Microsoft's illegal conduct, restore competitive conditions or deny the Redmond, Wash., software company the fruits of its anti-competitive behavior.

A key sticking point for critics is that the remedy does not require Microsoft to unbundle middleware code from the Windows operating system but allows only users and PC manufacturers to remove the middleware icon from the desktop. Critics also said the API and protocol disclosure leave too much discretion to Microsoft to define terms.

The European Commission is considering whether to order Microsoft to hand over internal memos revealed in the International Herald Tribune and New York Times newspapers that describe sales practices the European regulator suspects may break its antitrust rules, people close to the Commission said Thursday.

The sister newspapers reported that Microsoft's top salesman, Orlando Ayala, last July circulated a confidential memo to senior executives of the company around the world laying out a strategy to offer big discounts to governments and institutions, and in some cases to offer the company's software for free.

Ayala is reported to have told colleagues that the aim of the strategy is to dissuade clients from switching to rival PC operating system providers -- and especially to Linux, the open source software platform which is starting to steal market share from Microsoft in the server software market.

"Under NO circumstances lose to Linux," Ayala is reported to have written in the memo dated July 16, 2002.

Most discounting is viewed as normal competitive business behavior, but European Union antitrust law prohibits companies that dominate their markets from offering big discounts if their main aim is to exclude rivals, or if the discounts are only offered to certain clients. [InfoWorld]

Manipulation in the copper market may be as old as the market itself, but traders and analysts say the antitrust probe launched this week into a possible cartel in concentrates might lead nowhere and ultimately just reflect market dynamics.

Even though copper has a colorful history of scandal, the red metal is no more ripe for trading shenanigans than other commodities, nor does it hold any intrinsic quality lending itself to price-doctoring, they said.

Canadian, U.S. and European competition regulators are investigating allegations of price fixing of copper concentrate, the mined product refined into metal.

Development of the last 15 acres at Boca Raton Airport continues to taxi, its takeoff hampered by years of litigation, political snafus - and now charges of antitrust violations.

It's the latest strike in the air assault between Premier Aviation of Boca Raton, which in 2000 signed a 35-year lease with the Boca Raton Airport Authority to develop a fixed-base operator, and Boca Aviation, currently the only FBO at the airport.

On April 23, Premier lawyer Gerald Richman filed two antitrust lawsuits against Boca Aviation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Premier Aviation, the plaintiff for one of the complaints, claims Boca Aviation "currently enjoys and is illegally seeking to protect a longstanding and unbridled monopoly over the sale of jet fuel, aviation gas and related aviation services at Boca Raton Airport, and has instituted sham litigation to maintain its practices."

In the second complaint, the plaintiffs are David S. Blue and S. Brent Blue, who claim that Boca Aviation "has enjoyed inflated profits that result directly from being the sole fixed-base operator at the airport since 1984."

Richman said he is seeking a class status and plans to file a motion for certification within 90 days. He deferred a request for further detail about the plaintiffs or their business to an associate who was not available.

"An anticompetitive environment is against public policy," said Richman, a partner in the West Palm Beach-based law firm Richman Greer Weil Brumbaugh Mirabito & Christensen. "Boca Aviation wants to maintain its monopoly. Period."

Mark Wantshouse, president of Boca Aviation, views the lawsuits as a gambit to sway public opinion. In 30 percent to 40 percent of U.S. airports, there is only one fixed-base operator, he said. "These are frivolous lawsuits only made as defamations of Boca Aviation for public relations reasons," he said.

If his company has been practicing monopolistic pricing, Wantshouse reasoned, then pilots and other airport users would have repeatedly logged complaints with airport manager Ken Day. But Day has never contacted Boca Aviation about such complaints, Wantshouse said.

The SARS emergency worsened in Taiwan, which had its biggest one-day jump in cases Thursday, while China threatened possible execution for people who cause death or injury by deliberately spreading the disease.

The warning by China's Supreme Court, reported by the official Xinhua News Agency, appeared to be an effort to force compliance with quarantines and other restrictions. It cited existing laws with tough penalties, including a possible death penalty for even nonviolent offenses.

A California court has been asked to decide a sticky legal question: whether an alleged scheme by technology giant 3M Co. to control the market for transparent tape cost the state's consumers millions of dollars.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, draws on the same allegations made against 3M in a 1997 federal anti-trust action by LePage's Co., its main competitor in the $800-million U.S. cellophane tape market.

In 1999, a federal jury in Philadelphia awarded $68.4 million in damages plus interest to LePage's, which is owned by privately held Conros Corp. of Toronto, and ordered 3M to dismantle a retail incentive program aimed at boosting tape sales.

In March, a U.S. appeals court upheld the verdict, but 3M -- whose products range from sandpaper and industrial adhesives to drugs and Post-It notes -- said it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

LePage's president Navin Chandaria said he, too, planned to return to court to ask for sanctions against 3M, alleging the $16 billion company has found "legal ways of doing the same thing to violate the spirit of the law."

A spokesman for 3M had no immediate comment.

The California class action by tape consumer Elaine Culotti accuses 3M of violating the state's anti-trust and unfair business practices laws to protect its monopoly and restrict the availability of cheaper tape brands statewide.

Culotti's lawsuit contends that 3M accomplished this by offering rebates and lump-sum cash payments to retailers who agreed to buy several 3M lines and to meet retail sales goals.

Kmart, Staples, Sam's Club and other retailers who accepted the incentives canceled their tape purchases from LePage's and Tesa Tuck Inc. to meet 3M's sales targets and avoid losing the price breaks, the lawsuit alleged.

"What 3M did to LePage's had an impact on consumers in California -- namely, lack of consumer choice and increased prices for Scotch tape," Culotti's attorney Kevin Roddy said.

The California lawsuit contemplates a class of "hundreds of thousands of consumers" and damages in the millions, he said.

Baseball commissioner Bud Selig is investigating whether the Florida Marlins followed minority-hiring guidelines when they replaced manager Jeff Torborg with Jack McKeon.

"Bud's looking into it," Bob DuPuy, baseball's chief operating officer, said Tuesday.

In 1999, Selig sent a letter to teams requiring them to notify him about certain job vacancies, including manager. Teams are to provide a list of minority candidates, and the commissioner's office reviews the names before anyone is hired.

The Marlins could be fined if it's determined they failed to follow Selig's guidelines. He has the power to fine teams up to $2 million.

Craig Bozman of Rockville, Md., in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, lists some of the government facilities in West Virginia that are named for the state's (and the nation's) senior senator:

The Robert C. Byrd Highway; the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam; the Robert C. Byrd Institute; the Robert C. Byrd Life Long Learning Center; the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program; the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope; the Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing; the Robert C. Byrd Federal Courthouse; the Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center; the Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center; the Robert C. Byrd United Technical Center; the Robert C. Byrd Federal Building; the Robert C. Byrd Drive; the Robert C. Byrd Hilltop Office Complex; the Robert C. Byrd Library; the Robert C. Byrd Learning Resource Center; and the Robert C. Byrd Rural Health Center.

Last week Byrd accused President Bush of "flamboyant showmanship" after the president gave a speech on the USS Robert C.--whoops, make that the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Yet another commentator is experiencing psychosomatic symptoms purportedly brought on by President Bush's speech on the USS Lincoln. Here's San Francisco Chronicle columnist Jon Carroll:

I have not commented on the George Bush aircraft carrier photo-op fiasco until now because, quite candidly, the level of manipulation and cynicism gave me the vapors. I had to lie down on the daybed and have wet cats thrown at me for many hours before I was sentient again.

If only he'd start penning his column while sentient.

One Times veteran suggests Blair received excess favor not so much because he was black, but because he was green. According to this source, Blair is typical of the latest crop of reporters anointed by the [Howell] Raines administration. "They're young, they're energetic, they say the right things, they kiss ass—but they don't have the skills to do the jobs they're handed," says the source. "This kind of favoritism is repulsive to people who have been there awhile."

Other insiders say the Blair case is symptomatic of a deeper issue: The Times newsroom does not operate as a meritocracy. Instead, sources say, Raines and [managing editor Gerald] Boyd pick their favorites for whatever reasons and become so invested in showcasing these reporters that they turn a blind eye to their flaws, which are said to range variously from inexperience and laziness to intellectual dishonesty and a high volume of factual errors.

Baseball, which is the only sport with a PAC, formed the committee last year, when the House and Senate judiciary committees were considering legislation to partially rescind the sport's antitrust exemption. Among other things, that exemption has allowed baseball to prevent teams from moving from city to city, as has happened in other sports.

Baseball lobbied to preserve the exemption and made contributions to judiciary committee members in both houses of Congress. It also dropped plans to eliminate two teams, which had sparked the bill. The legislation never made it out of committee.

The sport is also working to preserve its copyrights on the Internet, an issue that comes under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate commerce committees. A majority of the PAC's contributions went to members who sit on either judiciary or commerce.

Selig's predecessor, Fay Vincent, who was forced out as commissioner in 1992, said Congress has real power over the sport. He said Senate pressure in the 1980s led baseball to award expansion franchises to Denver and Miami in 1991.

"I don't think baseball would have expanded had it not been for the Senate, which really pushed very hard for teams in Colorado and Florida," Vincent said.

He recalled that senators, especially from those two states, threatened to push legislation rescinding baseball's antitrust exemption.

The Justice Department is scrutinizing the $10-per-round-trip fare increases made by the nation's largest airlines to determine whether carriers violated an antitrust ruling enacted nearly a decade ago.

At issue is the way in which airlines make fare changes that do not go into effect immediately, raising the possibility that they could signal future pricing plans to competitors.

"We are looking into it," Gina Talamona, a spokeswoman at the department's antitrust division, said Monday.

On Thursday, American Airlines raised non-sale fares on its North American routes by $10 per round trip starting June 1. United, dominant carrier at Denver International Airport, matched the increase the next day, and eight other carriers had fallen in line by late Monday.

The industry raised fares in anticipation of the government's upcoming four-month suspension of security fees, which amount to $2.50 per flight segment, maxing out at $10 per round trip.

"Airlines were faced with two choices: give consumers up to a $10 round-trip break, or raise fares," said Jamie Baker, J.P. Morgan's airline analyst. "Not surprisingly, the industry chose the latter."

Analysts and executives have said for months that the industry, which lost $3.5 billion in the first quarter, needs to find ways to boost revenue even as it struggles to cut costs. Fares have been kept extremely low to lure anxious and penny-pinching travelers back to the skies.

Paycom Billing Services, Inc., an Internet Payment Service Provider, processing credit card and check transactions for Internet merchants, filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit today in Federal Court in Los Angeles against MasterCard International for antitrust violations, fraud and other issues.

Paycom's suit alleges that MasterCard has established monopolistic rules that allow it unreasonable discretion to dominate Internet merchants, and it has exercised this power to illegally impose fines and penalties in the millions of dollars.

Former Federal Prosecutors for the US Department of Justice, William McD. Miller and Richard P. Crane, Jr. of the Los Angeles law firm Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP and Dennis M. P. Ehling, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff. Mr. Crane stated, "A United States Federal District Court has already determined that MasterCard is a monopoly. MasterCard's continued unfair dealings and the imposition of baseless fines, penalties and fees on Internet merchants, such as Paycom, simply prove the abusive control that one
finds in a monopoly."

“Alternative Newsweekly” means a publication (such as the Cleveland Scene or LA Weekly) that possesses more than one of the following attributes: (i) it is published in a geographic area served by one or more daily newspapers to which residents turn as their primary source or sources of printed news; (ii) it is published weekly (or less frequently), and at least 24 times annually; (iii) it is distributed free of charge; (iv) it is not owned by a daily newspaper publishing company; and (v) it is a general interest publication that does not focus exclusively on one specific topic, such as music, entertainment, religion, the environment, or a political party or organization.

The distinctive structure of the Frank Gehry-designed Case Western business school building, with hallways that dip and swerve, complicated the job for police.

"As the SWAT team entered the building, they were constantly under fire," Lohn said. "They couldn't return fire because of the design of the building. They didn't have a clear shot."

Lohn said a SWAT team engaged in "firefights" throughout the building with Halder and finally cornered him in a room. Police weren't sure when Halder was shot, but said he was apprehended without incident. [AP]

When and why did health insurance, paid by third parties, become widespread in the American economy? Like so many things that the government does, third-party health insurance grew out of problems created by previous government policies.

During World War II, the government imposed wage and price controls. This meant that employers who wanted to hire more workers were forbidden to offer higher wages to attract them. So employers started offering various benefits instead. One of these benefits was employer-paid health insurance.

Since these benefits were not taxed as income, and could be treated as a business expense by the employer, everybody seemed to be better off. But, long after the war was over and wage and price controls were gone, the idea that third parties ought to pay for health insurance continued on. Eventually the government itself got into the business of providing health insurance and now some politicians depict it as a scandal that not everyone has health insurance paid for by third-parties.

This might make some sense if third-party insurance was cheaper or better than insurance that each individual pays for directly. All the evidence is that it is just the opposite. When third parties pay, use of the insurance -- and of the medical resources that it pays for -- has skyrocketed beyond anything contemplated at the outset.

Mayor Williams, who never impressed anyone as a sports fanatic in earlier years, has become increasingly obsessed with bringing baseball back to the District. So obsessed, it seems, that the mayor appears to have opened up a bidding war with himself to lure the Montreal Expos to the nation's capital.

How else to explain the mayor's recent hefty increase in public-sector support for building and financing a new ballpark? More than two years ago, as Eric Fisher of The Washington Times reminded us in yesterday's news story, Mr. Williams offered public support totaling $200 million to lure a major league team to the District. Last winter, D.C. officials provided MLB executives with a preliminary financing outline that would have limited public stadium financing to $275 million.

This week, the mayor upped the ante by more than $60 million. He has now presented the D.C. Council with a ballpark package totaling $338.7 million, which includes $40 million to fund lending reserves and $9 million in bond acquisition costs. The package also includes $15 million to renovate RFK Stadium, where the team would play its first two or three seasons while a new $436 million ballpark was constructed. The balance of the package — $275 million — would directly subsidize the construction of the ballpark, representing nearly two-thirds of its cost. Despite its disproportionate contribution, the mayor's package would unaccountably allow the team's eventual owners to defray their share of ballpark costs by the amount of the stadium's naming rights, which would generate between $2 million and $4 million per year.

Our rules run to the licensee. At some point, enough is enough." With those words, during his speech to the annual National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas earlier this month, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell sent a shiver through the broadcasting industry. The FCC is now talking seriously about revoking broadcast licenses for egregious violations of its decency rules.

This is welcome but long overdue, and it is not by accident. FCC commissioner Kevin Martin met with representatives of a dozen pro-family organizations on March 26. The representatives emerged from that meeting optimistic that support for their position — that the FCC had to be far more aggressive in enforcing its decency standards on television and radio — is growing significantly within the commission.

Both Commissioner Martin (a Republican) and Commissioner Michael Copps (a Democrat) have been quite outspoken in recent months about the need to return to a family hour, when parents and children can gather in front of the screen and enjoy entertainment together without having their values and senses assaulted.

Both the ABC and PAX networks have begun to deliver more family-friendly programming in the first hour of their prime time lineups. This sign is encouraging as networks continue to discover that family-friendly programming can be profitable.

The Department of Justice today announced an agreement with BB&T Corporation which requires the company to make substantial divestitures in order to resolve antitrust concerns about the company's pending acquisition of First Virginia Banks Inc.

Under the agreement, BB&T will divest 11 First Virginia bank branches and two First Virginia drive-in facilities, with about $290 million in total deposits and loans associated with these branches.

"This divestiture will ensure that banking customers in Virginia will continue to have competitive banking services available," said R. Hewitt Pate, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Department's Antitrust Division.

In addition, BB&T has agreed that, for a period of time, it will sell or lease any of the branches closed as a result of the merger in specified banking markets to any commercial bank, as long as the bank's offer is equal to or better than any non-bank offer.

The proposed merger is subject to the final approval of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Department said that it will advise the Federal Reserve Board that, subject to the divestiture of specified branch offices and associated loans and deposits, the Antitrust Division will not challenge the merger.

BB&T Corporation is headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. It has consolidated assets of $80.2 billion and consolidated total deposits of $51.3 billion. BB&T is a financial holding company that conducts its principal activities through three banking subsidiaries.

First Virginia Banks Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia. It has consolidated assets of $11.2 billion and deposits of $9.2 billion. First Virginia conducts its principal banking activities through eight subsidiary banks.

Kopp was lying in wait behind Slepian's suburban Amherst home Oct. 23, 1998, and fired once through a rear kitchen window after the doctor returned from a memorial service for his father. Slepian's wife and four sons were home at the time.

A suspect soon after the shooting, Kopp fled to Mexico and then Ireland before ending up in France. He is a suspect in the non-fatal shootings of four other abortion providers in Canada and Rochester between 1994 and 1997.

Researchers at Plymouth University in England reported this week that primates left alone with a computer attacked the machine and failed to produce a single word.

"They pressed a lot of S's," researcher Mike Phillips said Friday. "Obviously, English isn't their first language."

A group of faculty and students in the university's media program left a computer in the monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo in southwest England, home to six Sulawesi crested macaques. Then, they waited.

At first, said Phillips, "the lead male got a stone and started bashing the hell out of it.

"Another thing they were interested in was in defecating and urinating all over the keyboard," added Phillips, who runs the university's Institute of Digital Arts and Technologies.

Eventually, monkeys Elmo, Gum, Heather, Holly, Mistletoe and Rowan produced five pages of text, composed primarily of the letter S. Later, the letters A, J, L and M crept in — not quite literature.

Phillips said the project — funded by England's Arts Council rather than by scientific bodies — was intended more as performance art than scientific experiment.

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico developed a program for providing health care coverage for the uninsured, known as the Reform, which currently covers about 30% of the population. In late 1996, the College of Physicians and Surgeons decided to take collective action in an attempt to raise their reimbursement level under the Reform, which would have raised the costs of health care to the citizens of Puerto Rico. The College ultimately called an eight-day strike, with physicians closing their offices and, in some cases, canceling elective surgery without notice. The potentially serious impact on patients of such anticompetitive behavior is obvious. The FTC and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico jointly filed a complaint and obtained a consent agreement, under which the College and three large medical groups that contracted with the government paid $300,000 in restitution and agreed not to engage in future boycotts or unintegrated collective price fixing.

We believe that sound antitrust enforcement in situations like the one in Puerto Rico has been a major factor in permitting the emergence of alternative health care arrangements that today vie for the patronage of consumers, private employers, and government purchasers. Although health care markets have changed dramatically over time, and continue to evolve, collective action by health care providers to block innovation and interfere with cost-conscious purchasing remains a significant threat to consumers. The prospect of effective antitrust enforcement therefore continues to be a crucial, positive influence on the marketplace which encourages better responses to consumer demands for high-quality and cost-effective health care.

Patients Face Cancellations, Delays As Doctors Protest Insurance Rates

By ALEX FRANGOS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

For months, physicians around the country have been protesting the skyrocketing cost of malpractice insurance. Now, patients are starting to feel the impact.

Over the past week, in an escalation of tactics, between 5,000 and 6,000 Pennsylvania physicians either refused patients or shut their offices down completely in protest. In Jacksonville, Fla., about 100 surgeons and obstetrician/gynecologists shut down their offices on May 3, forcing public health officials to open an emergency operations center to coordinate care. That is a strategy usually reserved for hurricanes.

More doctors will be away from their offices as part of protests planned for Illinois, New York state and Washington state. A rally of as many as 5,000 physicians is expected to close many offices next week in New Jersey. . .

US Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that trans-Atlantic divisions over the US-led war on Iraq were a thing of the past and the United Nations would play a vital role in that country's future.

Most of Powell's speech went to praising ties between the United States and the EU and within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

"We are driven forward by common values," he said, "and when we disagree it is usually over means rather than the ends."

After the fall of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) last month, Powell said France would "pay a price" for leading opposition to the war in the UN Security Council.

But in his speech he explicitly mentioned neither France nor the other prominent EU critic, Germany. Instead, he said "honest, open, rigorous debate" was a virtue and "we should never seek agreement for agreement's sake."

The closest he came to criticising them was when he congratulated Eastern European candidate members of the EU who supported the war, "rather than sit back and be intimated and silent".

Powell repeated what he had told reporters at the United Nations earlier: that the United States would present a draft resolution on Iraq to other Security Council members this week.

"The United States has every expectation that the United Nations will play a vital role," he said, without giving details.

The European Union's foreign policy chief asked the United States on Wednesday to deal with Europe as a whole rather than pick out individual allies because they happened to agree with U.S. policies.

Javier Solana, speaking at a dinner alongside Secretary of State Colin Powell, said in many areas the United States could best obtain what it wants from Europe by dealing with the European Union collectively.

'The European Union is more than the sum of its parts. Therefore, I am concerned when I hear ... influential voices asking whether the United States would be better served by disaggregating Europe,' he told the Foreign Policy Association.

'Such an approach would not only contradict generations of American wisdom, it would also be profoundly misguided,' he said.

Solana's remarks reflected European fears that splits in Europe over the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March would drive Washington away from its policy of encouraging European unity and integration.

"I detest American imperialism, American infantilism, and American triumphalism about victories it didn't even win.

On April 29, 2000, I switched on CNN in my hotel room and, by chance, saw an item designed to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war. The camera showed us a street scene in which a shabby elderly Vietnamese man was seen speaking English and bartering in dollars in a city that I took to be Ho Chi Minh City, still familiarly known in America by its old French colonial name of Saigon.

"The language of Shakespeare," the commentator intoned, "has conquered Vietnam." I did not note down the dialogue, though I can vouch for that sentence about the language of Shakespeare. But the word "dollar" was certainly repeated several times, and the implications of what the camera showed were clear enough.

The elderly Vietnamese man was impoverished, and he wanted hard currency. The Vietnamese had won the war, but had lost the peace.

John Maynard Keynes was, basically, an inflationist. This has not been clearly recognized because he never spelled out, step by step, the consequences of his proposed remedy for unemployment and depression. That remedy was deficit spending by the government. He recognized that increased government spending paid for by equally increased taxation would not "add purchasing power." The increased taxation would offset any "stimulus" that the increased government spending would provide. What counted, he confessed, was the government deficit. But he failed to take his readers beyond this step. How would that deficit be financed? Either the money would have to be borrowed, or new (paper) money or credit would have to be created. But if the money were borrowed, then the previous spending stimulus would be reversed by a deflation when the borrowing was repaid. The only thing to prevent this reversal would be to allow the new spending to remain outstanding. In other words, the Keynesian solution to every slowdown in business or rise in unemployment was still another dose of inflation.

The Senate's Republican tax writers struck on agreement Wednesday on a dividend tax cut, ensuring that a scaled-back version of President Bush's call to eliminate such taxes entirely for shareholders will win support in the Senate Finance Committee.

The proposal combines elements favored by GOP moderates and conservatives. Shareholders would not pay taxes on the first $500 of dividend income. Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa said that covers the 86 percent of taxpayers who receive dividend income. . .

. . .The redrafted dividend tax cut won support from Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who had forced Republicans to bargain for a smaller dividend tax cut. It is still opposed by Democrats on the panel.

Microsoft Corp. has reached a $12.3 million settlement with Montana consumers who accused the computer software giant of violating the state's antitrust and unfair competition laws.

The agreement, disclosed Monday, requires payments be made in the form of vouchers that can be used toward purchases of computers and software. Half of any money remaining after a four-month period for those claims will be offered to the state's poorest schools for hardware, software or training.

Microsoft estimated that 325 Montana schools, with total enrollment of 38,325 students, will be eligible for leftover settlement proceeds.

Linda McCulloch, state superintendent of public instruction, said the benefit to Montana schools is badly needed.

''All our schools are facing daunting budget problems,'' she said. ''This settlement is most welcome and will be put to good use in classrooms across Montana.''

Jennifer Hendricks, one of the Helena attorneys behind the lawsuit, said schools are all but certain to get something from the settlement since it's unlikely all the money will be claimed by consumers.

The Illinois Supreme Court in the instant case correctly observed that “the percentage of [fundraising] proceeds turned over to a charity is not an accurate measure of the amount of funds used ‘for’ a charitable purpose.” 198 Ill. 2d, at 360, 763 N. E. 2d, at 298 (citing Munson, 467 U.S., at 967, n. 16). But the gravamen of the fraud action in this case is not high costs or fees, it is particular representations made with intent to mislead. If, for example, a charity conducted an advertising or awareness campaign that advanced charitable purposes in conjunction with its fundraising activity, its representation that donated funds were going to “charitable purposes” would not be misleading, much less intentionally so. Similarly, charitable organizations that engage primarily in advocacy or information dissemination could get and spend money for their activities without risking a fraud charge. See Schaumburg, 444 U.S., at 636—637; Munson, 467 U.S., at 963; Riley, 487 U.S., at 798—799.

The Illinois Attorney General here has not suggested that a charity must desist from using donations for information dissemination, advocacy, the promotion of public awareness, the production of advertising material, the development or enlargement of the charity’s contributor base, and the like. Rather, she has alleged that Telemarketers attracted donations by misleading potential donors into believing that a substantial portion of their contributions would fund specific programs or services, knowing full well that was not the case. See supra, at 4—5, 15. Such representations remain false or misleading, however legitimate the other purposes for which the funds are in fact used.

We do not agree with Telemarketers that the Illinois Attorney General’s fraud action is simply an end run around Riley’s holding that fundraisers may not be required, in every telephone solicitation, to state the percentage of receipts the fundraiser would retain. See Brief for Respondents 14—19. It is one thing to compel every fundraiser to disclose its fee arrangements at the start of a telephone conversation, quite another to take fee arrangements into account in assessing whether particular affirmative representations designedly deceive the public.

The question presented by the petition for certiorari in this case read as follows: “Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated.” Pet. for Cert. i. I join the Court’s opinion because I think it clear from the opinion that if the only representation made by the fundraiser were the one set forth in the question presented (“that donations will be used for charitable purposes”), and if the only evidence of alleged failure to comply with that representation were the evidence set forth in the question presented (that the fundraiser “keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated”), the answer to the question would be yes.

It is the teaching of Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 793 (1988), and Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947, 966 (1984), that since there is such wide disparity in the legitimate expenses borne by charities, it is not possible to establish a maximum percentage that is reasonable. It also follows from that premise that there can in general be no reasonable expectation on the part of donors as to what fraction of the gross proceeds goes to expenses. When that proposition is combined with the unquestionable fact that one who is promised, without further specification, that his charitable contribution will go to a particular cause must reasonably understand that it will go there after the deduction of legitimate expenses, the conclusion must be that the promise is not broken (and hence fraud is not committed) by the mere fact that expenses are very high. Today’s judgment, however, rests upon a “solid core” of misrepresentations, ante at 16, that go well beyond mere commitment of the collected funds to the charitable purpose.

[Schwaebisch Hall] is the first city in the world to do that, say local officials, who note the switch will save money, improve security and end dependence on one supplier.

Such companies as Deutsche Telekom and 7-Eleven, as well as government agencies in Germany, France, the United States and other countries, are relying increasingly on open-source software for heavy data lifting, mostly on servers that do Internet and database work.

But Schwaebisch Hall's decision to adopt the software for everything represents a breakthrough, said SuSE, Germany's leading Linux distributor, which swung the deal to make the switch.

SuSE credits the move to its user-friendly Linux desktop products, which make it palatable to the average computer user who wants only to deal with a graphical Windows-like interface.

"This is the first customer that has said, 'This is the platform that our future is going to be taking shape with,' " said Stefan Werden, a senior SuSE sales engineer.

"As a democratic society, we should not support monopolies," he said, adding a gentle dig, "Freedom of choice — it's the American way, isn't it?"

"You said in your speech that "competition" was the "bedrock of our economy." Why didn't you say that the principle of individual rights was the bedrock of our economy?

It seems that you hold a consumer has a right to his interest (i.e. low healthcare prices) but none of the doctors here have a right to their interest (i.e. all the remuneration the market will bear).

Why does a consumer have a right to the unearned (that which he is unwilling to pay for), but a doctor has no right to what he earns (that which others freely pay him?)"

A coach doesn't have to be a paragon, but what's he doing with a "Natty" Light in his hand, drinking with kids who will be "worshipping the porcelain god" or "talking to Ralph on the big white telephone" by the end of the night? The undergrad sensibility is irreverent in students, but in a head coach it's darker. Here's why. I asked a college-age acquaintance of mine, a smart-aleck Georgetown guy, who he would rather have as head coach: [Georgetown head coach] Craig Esherick or Larry Eustachy? He said, "Eustachy in a heartbeat. All Esherick does is graduate players. All Eustachy does is win games and hook up with hotties."

You see the problem. And here is a fact: One of Eustachy's players was arrested for being facedown drunk on a sidewalk and another for drunk driving.

The coaching profession should take notice: Grown-ups are running this country again. Whether you like the fact or not, people such as Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are in charge, responsibility is the new chic and there is extremely low public tolerance for overserved boyish high jinks from people who are paid to be leaders. At least some of the outrage at Eustachy is a result of the fact that he is the highest-paid state employee in Iowa, with a salary of $1.1 million, while Price was offered a seven-year, $10 million contract at Alabama. One of the expectations attached to that money is that a leader will make hard decisions and stand up to accept the credit or blame for the outcome.

Croom, who has been an NFL assistant for 16 years, including the last two as the Green Bay Packers' running backs coach, was an All-American center for Bear Bryant in the mid-1970s. A Tuscaloosa native, Croom was an assistant coach at Alabama for 10 seasons (1977-86), including the Tide's 1978-79 back-to-back national-title teams. In fact, Croom won the "Commitment to Excellence" award, an honor coaches hand out every spring. A return to the Bryant roots might not be a bad thing. More important, Croom would be the first African-American head coach in the Southeastern Conference, and hiring him would prove Alabama is thinking forward, not living in the past.

As America soon learned, a policy of accommodation only encouraged the brigands of the Barbary Coast to seize more ships and to take more captives. Far from providing safe passage to American and other foreign vessels, the North African rulers remained active accomplices to the crime of piracy, taking protection money while at the same time permitting the banditry to continue.

Things were to change, however, with the election of Thomas Jefferson. In addition to his reputation as an author, scholar and principal architect of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson also was an outspoken opponent of the practice of tribute. He saw it not only as an affront to the nation’s dignity, but also as an ineffectual response to an abhorrent practice. He argued that ultimately the policy of appeasement would fail because, in conveying weakness, it also encouraged further treachery. He was right.

Jefferson’s response to renewed attacks on American shipping was swift and uncompromising. He dispatched a squadron of three frigates and one sloop to the region. They were ordered to observe the deteriorating situation and provide whatever escort was needed to ensure the safety of American merchant vessels. By the time the frigates arrived, Yusuf Karamanli, the Bey of Tripoli, had declared war on the United States.

For the next two years the U.S. Navy conducted running operations against the Barbary pirates, attacking their corsairs and bombarding the coastal forts that sheltered them. The battle cry, “millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute” (a slogan first used during the XYZ affair of 1798), resonated with a public tired of being held hostage to bandits and oriental potentates.

City Councilman Peter F. Vallone Jr. has introduced a bill to explore the city's secession from the state. He says it offers the city a way to become less dependent on a state that takes $3.5 billion more each year from taxpayers than it returns.

The quixotic notion got a hearing before a City Council committee yesterday. Several speakers addressed Mr. Vallone's bill, which would create a commission that would examine secession and decide whether to hold a referendum on the matter.

"Every day Albany gives us another reason to just go our way," Mr. Vallone said. The latest example, he said, is the budget being drafted in Albany, which he called "another sham."

"They're giving us the ability to increase taxes on New York City residents at a time when we already pay too much in taxes."

Here again, the left is arguing on our terms. If people keep thinking like that, sooner or later they will reach the conclusion that the government shouldn't be used to sacrifice anybody to anybody else.

Meeting the educational needs of high-poverty, low-achieving children in our state’s highest-poverty public schools is of the greatest importance to the future welfare of Colorado.

STAHL: The mayor is at heart a businessman. He's running the city, and the schools, much like his old corporation, even moving out of his private office at City Hall and into an open bullpen like the one he used at Bloomberg News. He's ordered Klein and his people to work the same way and to adopt his business battle cry: no frills; be efficient and eliminate duplication.

Mr. KLEIN: Think of these 40 districts we're talking about. They're all buying their own books. You think they're getting bulk purchasing rates on that? We can save real money here, and we need it for our kids.

Where, as here, the two parents disagree on an educational practice, the decision of the custodial parent controls and Newdow has no right to overturn it. If, as the non-custodial parent, Newdow believes the mother’s educational decisions are causing harm to the child, the proper remedy is for him to resort to family court and seek a modification of the custody agreement. He cannot use federal litigation to circumvent that state-law process or to modify state-law custody judgment.

[I]n concluding that the Pledge results in unconstitutional coercion, the court of appeals failed to come to grips with this Court’s repeated recognition that the Establishment Clause permits such historic, ubiquitous, and ceremonial acknowledgments of our Nation’s religious character and heritage. Such references are not reasonably and objectively understood as coercing individuals into silent assent to any particular religious doctrine. Rather, the Pledge is“ consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief,” County of Allegheny, 492U. S. at 602- 603, because the ceremonial reference to God acknowledges the undeniable historical facts that the Nation was founded by individuals who believed in God, that the Constitution’s protection of individual rights and autonomy reflects those religious convictions, and that the Nation continues as a matter of demographic and cultural fact to be a predominantly“ religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”

Several articles have appeared in the media today regarding the University of Miami's Committee on Student Organizations (COSO) and its decision to deny a student group recognition as an official student club. Such recognition is important because it allows student organizations access to funding, space, and other benefits through student activity fees.

The Committee on Student Organizations is enforcing a rule that was developed years ago by others. I think it is perfectly acceptable for Committee on Student Organizations to develop recommendations or standards for the formation of student organizations on campus. But the purpose and content of those organizations absolutely should not be subject to review.

On the surface, Committee on Student Organizations' policy may sound logical and defensible, given limited resources and space, but the end result is that the policy protects existing organizations and makes it challenging for new organizations to be formed.

I have asked Committee on Student Organizations to implement a new policy that is consistent with the principles of free speech, academic freedom, and competition.

In addition, I have asked them to convene a meeting immediately to review the application for the Advocates for Conservative Thought.

Since its inception, CPA has operated solely to exert the collective bargaining power of its members. It engages in no activities or functions other than health plan contracting. Further, in connection with health plan contracting, its members do not engage in any cooperative activities to benefit consumers.

Respondents have succeeded in forcing numerous health plans to raise fees paid to CPA members, and thereby raised the cost of medical care in the Carlsbad area. As a result of the challenged actions of respondents, CPA members receive the highest fees for physician services in New Mexico. By orchestrating agreements among CPA members to deal only on collectively determined terms, together with actual or threatened refusals to deal with health plans that would not meet those terms, respondents have violated Section 5 of the FTC Act.

"Public tax dollars should not go to sending children to private institutions that do not endure the same amount of scrutiny regarding their education measures as the [public] school system," D.C. Council member Adrian Fenty, Ward 4 Democrat, said in a written statement.

"It is disingenuous at best and duplicitous at worst to siphon money from the District's public schools to finance vouchers for private school education when there is already a proposal to cut $100 million from the city's school budget," said Sandra Feldman, president of the American Federation of Teachers, the parent organization of the Washington Teachers Union.

"If voucher advocates really want to help students and strengthen D.C. schools, they should stand with the citizens and teachers of Washington, D.C., who oppose private school vouchers and support the use of effective educational programs and strategies," Miss Feldman said in a statement.

America has been blessed with the English common law system, or customary law based largely on precedent and statutes in effect in England under James I in 1603. Many of the former English Colonies adopted the common law system. Continental Europe, on the other-hand, and many other countries adopted a civil law system based on detailed written codes.

The civil law system traces its origins to the ancient Roman law system. The most famous of these civil law systems is the "Code Napoleon" of 1804, which serves as the basis for modern French law.

It is widely recognized that the "rule of law" is necessary for a civil and prosperous society. But in order to have a "rule of law," people need to know what the law is and for the laws to be considered reasonable. The Ten Commandments are an example of this principle. Most everyone could memorize 10 rules, but no person can know 10,000 or 100,000 rules. The beauty of the traditional common law system was there were relatively few rules, and the subsequent development of the law was based on the commonly understood first principles. Thou shall not murder, steal, etc.

Unfortunately, in recent decades we have had an explosion in detailed rulemaking that has drifted far from the common law. For instance, 30 percent of all federal criminal laws have been passed since 1970. Before 1950, most Americans could pretty well know whether an action they might undertake would violate the law. That has now changed.

Dear Mr. Selig.

I am writing today in support of Puerto Rico getting its own permanent Major League Baseball team.

The strong ticket sales and exuberant crowd reaction to the four-game Mets-Expos series that ended Monday shows that Puerto Rico could support its own Major League Baseball team. Even for those of us who could only watch the games on television, the intensity of the fans at Hiram Bithorn Stadium came through loud and clear.

Over 65,000 tickets we sold to people who were eager to see a Canadian team play a team from New York. The crowd went wild for players from both sides, which bodes very well for the future of a team in Puerto Rico. As you know, baseball teams typically take years to build fan loyalty and ticket sales. Crowds coming out to see their favorite players on visiting teams will boost ticket sales in the crucial first years in the Puerto Rican market.

The experiment of playing big league games in Puerto Rico succeeded beyond anyone's expectations, and Major League Baseball now should give very serious consideration to giving Puerto Rico a team of its own.

Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

The students say they were told by student leaders that since the university already has a College Republicans chapter, there was no need for another conservative group. Shalala, who was Clinton's Health and Human Services secretary, has ignored a letter asking for help, the four women and their supporters say.

They call the decision discriminatory, because along with a Democratic club, the school has several groups that they say represent liberal beliefs and causes, such as Amnesty International and Students for a Free Tibet.

Dear Karl:

As staunch supporters of President Bush, we have been heartened by your public statements about reaching out to the Hispanic-American community. Coming from the chief White House Advisor on political affairs, your words raise the hopes of every American of Hispanic heritage.

The question is, do your statements reflect a true concern by the Bush Administration for the interests of our community or are they only political rhetoric?

. . .The issue before the FCC is whether to NON-Hispanic media giants - Clear Channel and Univision - will be allowed to dominate and control the nation's Spanish language radio market, and, in turn, Latino culture.

Clear Channel, as you know, is owned by Lowry Mays, the Texas-based media tycoon who boasts openly of his influence in the Bush White House. Univision is owned by Jerry Perenchio, the California media czar, who like Mays, is a heavy contributor to Republican campaigns.

Fact: Neither Clear Channel nor Univision lists a single Hispanic among its top corporate executives or board members. What is even more disturbing to the Hispanic-American community is that the owner of Univision is the same Jerry Perenchio who openly campaigned on behalf of California's anti-Hispanic Proposition 187 during the Pete Wilson years.

Fact: A poll taken by Opiniones Latinas shows that an overwhelming majority (87%) of Hispanic-Americans belive that Spanish-speaking radio stations owned by Latinos are better able to understand and respond to the needs of Hispanic listeners.

Yet if the Clear Channel-Univision alliance is approved, independent Hispanic station owners across the country will face a future of being either devoured or crushed by a NON-Hispanic media monopoly[. . .]

The recording industry has tapped into two Internet file-swapping services and is flashing messages to music traders warning them they're breaking the law.

"COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT WARNING," the message reads. "When you break the law, you risk legal penalties. There is a simple way to avoid that risk: DON'T STEAL MUSIC."

At the same time, the industry is collecting the user names of people suspected of illegally offering copyright material with the file-sharing services Kazaa and Grokster, but it doesn't intend to pursue legal action, said Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) President Cary Sherman.

Sherman, who announced the effort Tuesday, called it "educational" and said "there's no enforcement connected to this."

Kazaa owner Sharman Networks likened the RIAA campaign to spam meant to confuse users. Grokster Ltd. President Wayne Rosso called it "a death rattle."

"It doesn't bother us, because we are very anti-copyright infringement anyway," Rosso said. "They think they're harassing us. No. What they're doing is declaring war on our users."