In an initial decision announced today, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) D. Michael Chappell upheld administrative complaint allegations that the February 2001 acquisition by Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. (CB&I) of the Water Division and the Engineered Construction Division of Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. (PDM) violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Judge Chappell found that complaint counsel had established that the effect of CB&I's acquisition of the PDM assets may be to substantially lessen competition in four relevant product markets in the United States in which both CB&I and PDM competed. The order entered by Judge Chappell would require CB&I to divest all of the assets acquired in the acquisition, in order to restore competition as it existed prior to the acquisition. The Judge's initial decision is subject to review by the full Commission, either on its own motion or on appeal by either the respondents or complaint counsel.

The Supreme Court turned the Constitution upside down yesterday. In a 6-3 decision, the majority struck down state sodomy laws across the country — a move that is being celebrated as a huge victory for homosexual rights, which it is. The court used the so-called right to privacy to rule against a Texas law prohibiting sex between people of the same sex. In a brazen example of judicial overreach, the court also ruled against all sodomy laws in all states. This is bad law; the Constitution protects the rights of the states to legislate on these matters.

Maine's law will require the state to develop a "climate change action plan."

The state Department of Environmental Protection will work with state agencies, individuals, businesses and others to come up with ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, to 10 percent below those levels by 2020 and, eventually, by as much as 80 percent.

The bill's sponsor, state Rep. Ted Koffman, a Democrat from Bar Harbor, said it's important that the DEP will work with others to develop ways to meet the goals.

"We're not mandating a command-and-control approach as to how we're going to get these emissions down," he said. "It could be that in certain cases a regulatory approach would be the most effective and appropriate way of achieving some piece of our overall goal. In other cases, it may be education or technical assistance that is needed."

All four members of Maine's congressional delegation support national measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Republican, said in a written statement Tuesday that she applauds the state for passing the law.

"The signing of this law should provide impetus for the Senate to consider the Climate Stewardship Act, legislation I co-sponsored to establish a cap-and-trade system to reduce (carbon dioxide) emissions," she said.

Sen. Susan Collins, also a Republican, said in a written statement that "climate change is a serious and growing threat. The most important thing we can do to combat global warming is to take concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is why I recently joined Senators (Jim) Jeffords and (Joseph) Lieberman to introduce the Clean Power Act."

Snowe also supports that law.

That bill would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants to 1990 levels by 2009.

U.S. Rep. Tom Allen, a Democrat who represents Maine's 1st Congressional District, has consistently pressed for reduction in greenhouse emissions.

The opening of the National Do Not Call Registry, a free service of the federal government developed to give consumers a choice about getting telemarketing calls at home, was announced this morning by President George W. Bush, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Timothy J. Muris, and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael K. Powell.

The National Do Not Call Registry will make it easier and more efficient for consumers to stop getting telemarketing calls they do not want. Consumers can register in two ways: online or by calling a toll-free number. Registration is free and is available in both English and Spanish.

"We're very pleased that beginning today, consumers can make the call on whether to get telemarketing pitches at home," said FTC Chairman Muris. "Registration is free and easy, whether it is done online or by telephone."

"Government is at its best when it empowers individuals to make their own choices," said FCC Chairman Powell. "Consumers wanted more control over their telephones - and we are giving it to them."

So now GovCo is going to cover most of the costs of prescription drugs. Sounds great, doesn't it? Uh huh.

I'm no economist but I know enough to make the following predictions: subsidizing prescription drugs will increase demand for prescription drugs thus driving up their price. One of two things will then happen -- (1) medicare costs will skyrocket or (2) the government will impose price controls on prescription drugs. Probably there will be some combination of (1) and (2).

Now, anyone who knows anything about history understands that price controls accomplish exactly one thing: they increase demand while restricting supply. In other words, more and more people will want more and more drugs, fewer and fewer of which will be available. Doctors will then feel pressure from GovCo not to prescribe drugs unless they absolutely have to and even that will not be enough to ensure that everyone who needs a particular drug gets it.

Oh yeah, and one more thing: don't expect to see half as many new life-saving drugs reach the market in the coming years. After all, would you spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a drug that, if it works and if the FDA approves it, won't make you any money?

That's right. Thanks to this bill, and thanks to the so-called conservatives who passed it, more people are going to want prescription drugs, fewer of which will be available; doctors will be forced to prescribe drugs only when absolutely necessary, which of course is a judgement call resulting in the likelyhood that a lot of people who do need a drug will not get a prescription for it; those who are lucky enough to get a prescription will still have trouble getting it filled; and fewer new drugs will be available as drug companies find they are unable to recoup their R&D costs. Oh, and for the rest of us, we'll be paying for all this and I can promise you: the suppossed $400 billion price tag cited by Congress won't even cover half the cost of the program.

For the uninformed, the whole "best player available" mindset among NBA general managers came about because of the 1984 draft. Then, the Houston Rockets took Hakeem Olajuwon with the first overall pick. The Portland Trail Blazers already had Clyde Drexler playing shooting guard, so they drafted for need, choosing Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan. The Bulls, who didn't have anything on their roster, took Jordan, and the concept of drafting "the best player available" was born.

All because general managers don't want to be labeled as the guy who misses out on the next Michael Jordan.

In all honesty, though, I cover the league, and I don't even know who the Blazers' GM was back then.

I just think it is a foolish way to approach a draft, taking "the best player available." Imagine if the San Antonio Spurs, with the 28th pick, get on the clock and the best player available is some 6-foot-10 dude from the outer reaches of unincorporated Mongolia. Does it really make sense for the Spurs to draft a power forward who clearly is going to get about 3½ minutes a game playing behind two-time MVP Tim Duncan because he is the "best player available"?

Let's take this to another forum. Imagine an architect is putting together his vision of a house, and he takes the "best room available" for each section of the house. No matter that the best living room comes from Buckingham Palace, the best dining room comes from a Saudi Arabian castle and the best master bedroom comes from Wilt Chamberlain's old domicile.

Throw them all together and you get, well, a really big version of the manager's residence in a trailer home park.

Or, Graceland.

No, an architect puts together his vision with a plan. As Ayn Rand said of Howard Roark's sketches in "The Fountainhead": "It was as if the buildings had sprung from the earth and from some living force, complete, unalterably right. Not a line seemed superfluous, not a needed plane was missing. The structures were austere and simple, until one looked at them and realized what work, what complexity of method, what tension of thought had achieved the simplicity. No laws had dictated a single detail."

I can't say I've ever heard of the assembling of an NBA team described in such an eloquent manner, but the point is well taken: "No laws had dictated a single detail."

Indeed, the law of "best player available" should be rescinded.

According to the FTC, U.S. consumers spend at retail about $600 million annually for superpremium ice cream. Nestlé and Dreyer's, along with Unilever, the marketer of Ben & Jerry's brand ice cream, account for about 98 percent of superpremium ice cream sales. In June 2002, Nestlé and Dreyer's agreed to combine their ice cream businesses. The purchase of Dreyer's would give Nestlé, alone, about 60 percent of the market. At the time, the deal was valued at about $2.8 billion.

In March 2003, the FTC authorized the staff to seek a preliminary injunction to block the merger of Nestlé and Dreyer's, pending trial. The agency asserted the merger would violate the antitrust laws by eliminating competition and raising prices for superpremium ice cream. Nestlé markets superpremium ice cream under the Häagen-Dazs brand. Dreyer's superpremium ice cream brands include Dreamery, Godiva, under a license with Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., and Starbucks, under a joint venture with Starbucks Corporation.

The proposed order also requires that Dreyer's make its license to manufacture, distribute, and sell Starbucks superpremium ice cream nonexclusive; and allow Mars, Inc., and Ben & Jerry's to terminate their relationships with Dreyer's. To ensure that CoolBrands can operate profitably and provide viable competition, the settlement requires that, for a period not to exceed one year, Nestlé and Dreyer's supply Dreamery, Godiva, and Whole Fruit products to CoolBrands at their production costs. It also requires that they distribute those brands for CoolBrands in any area of the U.S. where Dreyer's previously distributed the products. It requires that they provide technical assistance and administrative services to CoolBrands, as needed, for one year. The settlement requires that Nestlé and Dreyer's provide additional premium ice cream or novelty products to CoolBrands for up to five years to enable CoolBrands to operate profitably while it develops additional distribution arrangements.

[...] waiting extracts a heavy First Amendment price. If this suit goes forward, both Nike and other potential speakers, out of reasonable caution or even an excess of caution, may censor their own expression well beyond what the law may constitutionally demand. That is what a "chilling effect" means. It is present here.

In maintaining the modern commercial speech doctrine, the Court has failed to recognize that individuals value their membership in society largely for the selfish economic benefits that come from free trade with others. In a society that recognizes individual rights, all interactions are voluntary, based on mutual exchange to mutual benefit. It is only in a system of free and un-coerced exchange that individuals can properly trade to mutual benefit. Accordingly, one's political interests and one's economic interests are joined, sharing the same selfish motivation and deserving the same protection.

Yet in failing to protect the speech necessary to defend an individual's economic relationships with others, the Court has relegated self-interested speech to an intellectual ghetto. In the case before the Court, the California Supreme Court holds that because Nike, as a corporation, is acting out of its own economic self-interest, its employees and shareholders ultimately have no right to submit their views to the public. This view is false.

A federal appeals court overturned a judge's order that would have forced Microsoft to include competitor Sun Microsystems' Java software in its Windows operating system.

The ruling represents a victory for Microsoft in its drawn-out legal battle with Sun over the Java software.

The unanimous decision Thursday by the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a December ruling by a federal judge in Baltimore.

Java software is used to create interactive programs on Web sites that users can run regardless of what operating system or Web browser their computer uses.

The injunction would have required the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant to include Sun's Java technology in its Windows XP operating system until the lower court can rule on a lawsuit filed by Sun accusing Microsoft of anticompetitive practices.

Sun's case is one of four private antitrust lawsuits brought after another federal judge ruled in a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department and 18 states that Microsoft acted as an illegal monopoly based on its dominance in desktop operating systems.

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.

To me, there's a reason why the United States doesn't have a state in France or Venezuela. We don't belong there. That doesn't mean we don't deal with them. If all of a sudden Georgia is in Venezuela, the people in South America are saying, 'What the heck are these guys doing in here?' And I think we kind of did that. I think there is a lot to be said about your geographic area and that landscape.

Consider the following hypothetical. There is a substantial group of Americans who only speak Spanish and whose sources of information are limited to Spanish-speaking TV, Spanish-speaking radio, and Spanish-speaking newspapers. A single corporation by acquisition gains control over all three media. The head of that corporation would be in the position to wield enormous political and economic influence by determining what the Spanish-speaking community will know and believe. He or she could determine what political candidates will gain exposure to the Spanish-speaking electorate and whether that exposure will be positive, negative, or neutral. Being able to sway a substantial part of the Hispanic vote could determine the outcome of local, state, and national elections and the owner of this political power would be in position to make deals with a political party and with an Administration. The same corporation could dramatically influence within the Spanish-speaking community which cultural trends, products and services will be ignored, denigrated or positively portrayed, thereby having a significant impact on the economy. This is the Hypothetical of a Dominating Voice.

"I'm encouraged generally by the high level of interest among my fellow attorneys general," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal told Reuters. "There have been meaningful talks among the states and they are certainly ongoing and increasing in frequency and depth."

Connecticut, which is in the midst of a $100 million project to update its computer systems with PeopleSoft products, said last week an Oracle takeover of PeopleSoft would cost it "tens of millions of dollars" and asked a judge to block the deal, citing antitrust law.

"We're collecting evidence that confirms the anti-competitive and anti-consumer ramifications of this potential deal," Blumenthal said.

The conference call on Tuesday was "a standard, fact-finding process that typically happens any time there is word of a proposed merger or takeover bid that affects states or state government, as is the case in Texas," Texas Attorney General's Office spokesman Tom Kelley said in a statement.

Texas has not taken any legal action with regard to the deal, and Kelley declined to say how many states participated or provide specifics on the call.

After 11/2 months of deliberations, discussions and telephone meetings, the Atlantic Coast Conference stunned nearly everyone last night, extending invitations to Virginia Tech and Miami, according to a source close to the situation. Boston College and Syracuse -- Big East schools that had gone through a formal process to receive invitations -- were not included, the source said.

"It's all new," said a league source, shocked that a proposal that had never been mentioned previously emerged during last night's two-hour conference call among ACC university presidents.

Last night's conference call was one of the closing chapters in a lengthy saga and marked a 180-degree reversal for Virginia Tech. Even last night, according to a university spokesman, Virginia Tech had yet to learn of its invitation from the ACC. And Virginia Tech remains a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed by five Big East schools against the ACC, Miami and Boston College in an attempt to stop expansion, which is scheduled to occur for the 2004-05 season.

"In addition, in 2002, during the same meeting in which she emphatically committed to Plaintiffs in the strongest terms possible that Miami was committed to the Big East, President Shalala was appointed as the Big East's presidential representative in the BCS. In this position, which she holds to this day and has never resigned, President Shalala receives critical information and acts on behalf of Big East members and is charged to look out for their interests vis a vis other conferences in this vital aspect of the Big East's participation in major college football.

The plaintiffs, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Lorillard Tobacco Company, and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, sued Philip Morris Incorporated in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina for alleged violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2; North Carolina General Statutes §§ 75-1, 75-1.1, 75-2, and 75-2.1; and North Carolina common law prohibiting unfair competition. The plaintiffs, who are cigarette manufacturers competing with Philip Morris, base their case on a retail marketing program called "Retail Leaders" that Philip Morris started in 1998. Under Retail Leaders, Philip Morris provides discounts to retailers on its popular Marlboro brand in exchange for the most advantageous display and signage space in retail establishments. This arrangement, the plaintiffs say, restricts the flow of information to consumers, limits the plaintiffs’ abilities to promote their products, insulates Philip Morris from effective competition, and results in higher cigarette prices.

The district court, after considering an exhaustive record that includes extensive data and information about sales, trends, and conditions in the cigarette market for over two decades, granted (in a thorough opinion) Philip Morris’s motion for summary judgment as to all of the plaintiffs’ claims. See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Philip Morris Inc., 199 F. Supp. 2d 362 (M.D.N.C. 2002). The district court concluded that in the period "since [Philip Morris] implemented its challenged Retail Leaders program [in 1998], the cigarette market in the United States remains highly competitive, as evidenced by the general stability of market shares in the light of long-term trends, the profitability of the Plaintiffs, and the ongoing entry and increasing market share of new manufacturers." Id. at 397. We affirm the grant of summary judgment to Philip Morris, and we do so on the reasoning of the district court with one exception. With respect to the plaintiffs’ claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, we decline to conclude, as did the district court, that Philip Morris lacks market power. We agree, however, with the rest of the district court’s analysis of the section 1 claim. Assuming for the sake of argument that Philip Morris has market power, the plaintiffs did not show that Retail Leaders substantially forecloses competition in the relevant market. See id. at 386-93. Accordingly, as the district court ultimately determined, the plaintiffs’ section 1 claim fails. On the remaining issues, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court without any modification.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Of the two decisions, the undergraduate ruling may have a more lasting effect legally and politically. The decision by Chief Justice William Rehnquist was quite specific in rejecting a system that gave 20 points out of 150 for race--a level of preference viewed as modest by some other programs. This line will now become the focus of the next generation of cases for opponents of affirmative action.

Conversely, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's decision in the law school case is so generally worded that it may be vulnerable to later reduction or outright rejection. The dissenting justices accuse O'Connor of brushing over past opinions and previously established standards to uphold the Michigan policy. Among these earlier sources are some of O'Connor's own prior opinions that seem to contradict the result in this case.

In this decision, critics say O'Connor was somewhat cavalier in her application of the "strict scrutiny test," which must be satisfied whenever the government uses a race-based classification. O'Connor, they say, accepted certain arguments of the law school uncritically. She is also criticized for not imposing a specific duration for the Michigan program or require that such programs be used only to remedy past discrimination. All of these points are contested by the four dissenting justices. Thus, much of this decision could evaporate with a seemingly innocuous tweaking of one of these elements by a new court majority, should one of the justices retire.

The dissenting justices may have sown the seeds for precisely such a later rematch. In the undergraduate case, these justices left open the question of the precise weight that can be given to race, while ruling that Michigan was clearly excessive in its program. This will trigger countless challenges using the rejected Michigan program as a benchmark.

The court is now in the position of a constitutional Goldilocks: What is too much, too little and just the right weight in an admissions program? The undergraduate case is an invitation for challenges and, as early as 2004, the court could have a new case and, more notably, a new majority.

Monday's decisions will put affirmative action squarely on the agenda for the 2004 presidential election for two obvious reasons: The Bush administration opposed both admissions programs; the decision hangs by a single vote. With four justices expressing staunch opposition that is not likely to diminish with time, the next appointment to the court very likely will dictate the future of affirmative action. This puts the doctrines of affirmative action and abortion rights precariously on the 5-4 bubble.

The court's decision, then, suggests that the court knows what the nation knows: that, unfortunately, race still matters in the United States, and that as we as a nation seek to treat all Americans fairly, treat them equitably and as individuals, college and university admissions offices cannot be barred from looking at race. As Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in Bakke, "It would be impossible to arrange an affirmative-action program in a racially neutral way and to have it successful. . . . In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way."

. . .

And, finally, it is of the highest importance to recognize that the law school policy can be applied throughout all other colleges and universities. Nothing about this policy makes it peculiarly relevant for admissions decisions regarding law schools. The Michigan undergraduate admissions policy, which the court found flawed, awarded points for race and ethnicity. The only reason for that system was to ensure consistency across many different applications reviewed by many different admissions counselors. Nothing precludes the university from now embracing a non-quantitative method that permits counselors to consider "race" as one among many factors. And that will be true of every college and university admissions program in the country. It is, therefore, misleading and inaccurate to think of what the Supreme Court has done as a "split" or "murky" decision in this area of constitutional law. It is about as clear as constitutional law gets.

(2003-06-23) -- Just a day after announcing that he would use executive orders to overturn Supreme Court decisions, Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-MO, announced today that he has appointed himself President of the United States, effective immediately.

"I have duly sworn myself in as president," he said. "Instead of having the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court administer the oath of office, I just issued an executive order effective retroactively in advance."

President Gephardt has already issued an executive order making it illegal to "challenge the constitutionality of my reign as president."

I applaud the Supreme Court for recognizing the value of diversity on our Nation's campuses. Diversity is one of America's greatest strengths. Today's decisions seek a careful balance between the goal of campus diversity and the fundamental principle of equal treatment under the law.

My Administration will continue to promote policies that expand educational opportunities for Americans from all racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. There are innovative and proven ways for colleges and universities to reflect our diversity without using racial quotas. The Court has made clear that colleges and universities must engage in a serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives. I agree that we must look first to these race-neutral approaches to make campuses more welcoming for all students.

Race is a reality in American life. Yet like the Court, I look forward to the day when America will truly be a color-blind society. My Administration will continue to work toward this important goal.

The Court endorses Justice Powell's view that student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify using race in university admissions. The Court defers to the Law School's educational judgment that diversity is essential to its educational mission. The Court's scrutiny of that interest is no less strict for taking into account complex educational judgments in an area that lies primarily within the university's expertise. See, e.g., Bakke, 438 U. S., at 319, n. 53 (opinion of Powell, J.). Attaining a diverse student body is at the heart of the Law School's proper institutional mission, and its "good faith" is "presumed" absent "a showing to the contrary." Id., at 318-319. Enrolling a "critical mass" of minority students simply to assure some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin would be patently unconstitutional. E.g., id., at 307. But the Law School defines its critical mass concept by reference to the substantial, important, and laudable educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce, including cross-racial understanding and the breaking down of racial stereotypes. The Law School's claim is further bolstered by numerous expert studies and reports showing that such diversity promotes learning outcomes and better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce, for society, and for the legal profession. Major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. High-ranking retired officers and civilian military leaders assert that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps is essential to national security. Moreover, because universities, and in particular, law schools, represent the training ground for a large number of the Nation's leaders, Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, 634, the path to leadership must be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. Thus, the Law School has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body. 15-21.

The senator's site makes extensive use of a JavaScript menu system developed by Milonic Solutions, a software company based in the United Kingdom. The copyright-protected code has not been licensed for use on Hatch's website.

"It's an unlicensed copy," said Andy Woolley, who runs Milonic. "It's very unfortunate for him because of those comments he made."

Hatch on Tuesday surprised a Senate hearing on copyright issues with the suggestion that technology should be developed to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Net.

Hatch said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights," the Associated Press reported. He then suggested the technology would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, "then destroy their computer."

It was Massachusetts vs. Microsoft and now it's Connecticut vs. Oracle.

The Nutmeg state filed an antitrust lawsuit to block Oracle's hostile takeover of PeopleSoft, according to a statement issued Wednesday.

The lawsuit, to be filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Hartford, charges that the proposed $6.3 billion acquisition would violate state and federal antitrust statutes, according to state officials.

A combined Oracle/PeopleSoft would boost prices for businesses and consumers by "significantly reducing competition in the markets PeopleSoft serves and forcing current PeopleSoft customers to replace their software with other companies' products," according to the statement issued by governor John Rowland, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Comptroller Nancy Wyman.

Connecticut is a PeopleSoft customer, according to the PeopleSoft's Web site.

After a six-month investigation, federal regulators have cleared the $500 million acquisition of Pleasanton-based ProBusiness Services Inc. by payroll processing giant Automatic Data Processing Inc., or ADP.

In a statement Friday, ProBusiness said the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice closed its investigation of the proposed acquisition and granted early termination of the mandated waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act on Thursday.

Because ProBusiness has a large share of Fortune 500 clients, experts worried that a merger with ADP would concentrate too much share in the payroll processing market. Shares of ProBusiness were trading well below the deal price earlier this year as Wall Street analysts speculated publicly about whether the deal would be blocked.

Business software maker PeopleSoft Inc.'s Friday said its board unanimously rejected a sweetened hostile takeover bid by Oracle Corp. on the grounds that the combination would violate antitrust laws.

Lawyers will gather this weekend with public health officials to plan how to sue fast-food chains for obesity and make more money.

The Obesity Lawsuit Conference, which starts today in Boston, is aimed at putting fast-food chains on the defensive and "encouraging trial lawyers to become involved in lawsuits where they can make money," said John F. Banzhaf III, a professor of law at George Washington University and the activist spearheading the effort.

"Not only do the lawsuits ... fail to acknowledge the voluntary nature of the choices customers make, they also do not address the fundamental issue of personal responsibility," Washington restaurateur Christianne Ricchi of Italian restaurant i Ricchi testified yesterday.

"While I am confident we will overcome all of these obstacles, the prospect of dealing with the legal fees alone from a potential lawsuit causes me great concern for the future of my business, my employees and our industry as a whole."

Mr. Banzhaf dismissed suggestions that obesity is the result of profligate eating.

"Virtually everyone agrees obesity and obesity-related diseases occurred suddenly in the past 15 to 20 years," he said.

Mrs. Ricchi said personal accountability is the real issue, and that by taking aim at restaurants they are limiting freedom of choice for Americans.

"My view as a business owner is that we're here to offer options."

While the target of obesity lawsuits are fast-food companies, Mrs. Ricchi said that if the lawsuits continue, small businesses like hers will be hurt.

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- European regulators have opened proceedings against U.S. trading card marketer Topps Company Inc. for suspected anticompetitive practices in the distribution of cards and stickers featuring Pokemon cartoon characters.

The European Commission said Thursday it had found evidence that Topps' European subsidiaries and their distributors "put in place an elaborate strategy to prevent imports from low-price to high-price countries" at the height of a Pokemon craze among European children in 2000.

The Commission said the company had pledged in November 2000 to bring its distribution into line with EU rules and that there was no evidence of anticompetitive behavior since then.

Isn't the application of antitrust law almost a kind of slavery?

Take an athlete -- say Michael Jordan -- who monopolizes his own services and restricts his output to the market. It is hard to find a clearer case of market power, not to mention barriers to entry. Wouldn't it be a kind of slavery to go "trust-busting" and force MJ to do more commercials, or play another year of basketball? I say yes.

But is the corporate case really that much different? What if some people organize into a group and do the same thing? How can it be justified to force them to produce more output? Under some economic assumptions, the output restrictions of monopoly cause more factors of production to switch into other sectors (though then you have to wonder if anyone measures the net output restriction, the answer is they don't). Under other assumptions, there is no switching. Output restriction simply means that the monopolist and its employees work less hard.

And we are back to antitrust policy being a kind of quasi-slavery. In my view, you don't have to be a Bob Nozick to be worried about this.

Teddy Roosevelt: He was America’s Number-One crusader against business monopolies held by what he called the malefactors of great wealth.

Our twenty-sixth president was a Republican who believed in the idea that true free enterprise can only exist when independent entrepreneurs aren’t threatened with extinction by greedy corporations and trusts.

Believed it, fought for it, made it part of the Republican Party creed.

Question: What would Teddy Roosevelt say if he were alive today and saw his fellow Republicans in the White House and in Congress stand idly by while a federal agency paved the for a monopoly takeover of the nation’s Spanish-language media? A takeover engineered and advanced by a handful of media billionaires.

Fact: The Federal Communications Commission last week handed down a pro-monopoly edict on national media ownership.

And that’s not all. The same FCC - controlled by a three-member Republican majority – is now being asked to approve a proposed merger of Univision and Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation that would hand-deliver 70 PERCENT of the countries Spanish-language media market to two media giants – Univision and Clear Channel.

That’s right, 70 PERCENT! A merger, in other words, that would allow a pair of NON-Hispanic billionaires, Jerry Perenchio of Univision and Lowry Mays of Clear Channel, HBC’s largest shareholder, to dominate the nation’s Spanish-language media market and in turn, Latino culture. It would allow wealthy major shareholders of HBC such as Warren Tichenor and CEO Mac Tichenor to benefit enormously, but not Hispanic citizens.

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

Yet if a Univision-HBC merger is approved, independent Hispanic station owners across the country face a future of being devoured or crushed by an FCC-blessesed NON-Hispanic monopoly.

Question: Given the vital importance of this issue to the Hispanic media market, is it conceivable that the FCC would fast-track the Univision-HBC merger behind closed doors and without a single public hearing? And why, despite repeated professions of “outreach” has the Hispanic community not heard Republican voices raised against the threat of this monopoly to Spanish-language media? Who are these super-rich beneficiaries and why are their profits more important than the culture and will of Hispanic citizens?

FACT: Teddy Roosevelt’s portrait is prominently displayed at the White House. Isn’t it time to begin matching words with deeds?

Sincerely,
State Senator Efrain Gonzalez, Jr. (NY)
President, National Hispanic Policy Institute

Entry into the relevant markets by a new enterprise software provider would be extremely difficult, time-consuming, and expensive. The enterprise software industry serves enterprises through complex software that is often customized to serve a particular customer’s specific needs. Thus, costs and risks associated with switching providers can be extremely high. Moreover, enterprises will be reluctant to switch to a smaller or midsize financial or human resources software provider with untested scalability, performance and international effectiveness.

Another reason why a Republican-driven prescription-drug law is beneficial to U.S. drug companies is that it will protect their patent rights. Foreign outfits ripping off U.S. patents pose one of the largest economic threats to the American pharmaceutical industry. Currently, there is measurable political support among liberals to bring in pirated drugs from Canada and Europe because they are cheaper. (Forgers avoid the high research and development costs of legitimate firms that actually create new medicines.) Take away the prohibitive pricing problem that exists now, as the developing legislation would do, and the pressure to import cheaper drugs disappears and U.S. patents are safe, at least in this country.

Add these policy benefits to the political windfall passage of a prescription-drug law would bring, and Republicans have win-win legislation on their hands. With one less issue to demagogue, Democrats are worried — and should be.

The athletic departments should simply be made auxiliaries of the universities. They would be severed from any academic pretense — becoming athletic organizations associated with the universities. They would be self-supporting with the revenue-generating sports subsidizing the others. Donors would support them to their hearts' content. Coaches would be paid the going market rate without any suggestion they were involved in the academic life of the university. Athletic departments would be free of Title IX craziness since athletes wouldn't be getting aid from the university. Athletes would be honestly recruited according to athletic prowess, not according to the illusion they are scholar-athletes, when in truth they have only minimal academic capacities. They would be paid modest sums — stipulated by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) — for their labors. Those athletes who were really serious about academic life could take their pay in education vouchers, which could be used at the university whenever they wanted to use them.

SAN FRANCISCO - The State of Connecticut intends to file an antitrust lawsuit against Oracle in a bid to thwart its hostile takeover of PeopleSoft.

The lawsuit, which is expected to be filed in U.S. District Court in Hartford Wednesday, alleges that Oracle's planned takeover would violate state and federal antitrust laws and damage the state's economy.

"Oracle's hostile takeover bid has the potential to cost the state millions of dollars, and is a threat to the progress we have made in recent years in technology improvements," said Connecticut Governor John G. Rowland in a statement.

Oracle surprised the industry earlier this month by announcing a $16 per share offer to take over its business software rival. After swapping lawsuits with PeopleSoft, Oracle today upped its offer to $19.50 per share, or $6.3 billion.

The State of Connecticut has a personal stake in the acquisition. On July 8th, it is supposed to go live with the first stage of a five year, $100 million PeopleSoft installation, and the State Comptroller's Office, which is participating in the lawsuit, is concerned about the effects of an Oracle takeover.

"We're in the middle of a $100 million conversion, and the whole thing will probably be derailed, or at least severely hampered if we had to switch from PeopleSoft to another company," said Steve Jensen, a spokesman for the State's Comptroller Office.

Thousands of satellite television "pirates" in Florida and across North America are under attack by lawyers for DirecTV who have filed hundreds of federal lawsuits against consumers who allegedly bought mail-order decoders enabling them to steal the company's digital programming.

In U.S. District Court in South Florida, more than 300 suits were filed in May alone against consumers in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. And many more actions are on the way -- both locally and elsewhere, according to a spokesman for DirecTV.

The new wave of litigation is the latest move by Los Angeles-based DirecTV in the Internet war between the company and satellite pirates looking to tap in for free. So-called "pirate Web sites" that sell decoders and advocate their use sometimes cast the fight as a matter of freedom of access to information. One site even taunts DirecTV for its "ineffective" strategy to solve "their tremendous piracy problem."

"What they want is freedom to steal," said DirecTV spokesman Robert Mercer.

[ . . .]

DirecTV is demanding that violators be ordered to pay $10,000 in damages for each "pirate access device" purchased by a defendant, plus $850 in attorney fees. The $10,000 figure is the amount of damages that's provided for in federal law.

Illegally download copyright music from the Internet once, or even twice, and you get a warning. Do it a third time, and your computer gets destroyed.

That's the suggestion made by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at a Tuesday hearing on copyright abuse, reflecting a growing frustration in Congress over failure of the technology and entertainment industries to protect copyrights in a digital age.

The surprise statement by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, that he favors developing technology to remotely destroy computers used for illegal downloads represents a dramatic escalation in the increasingly contentious rhetoric over pirated music.

During a discussion of methods to frustrate computer users who illegally exchange music and movie files over the Internet, Hatch asked technology executives about ways to damage computers involved in such file trading. Legal experts have said any such attack would violate federal anti-hacking laws.

“I am very concerned about Internet piracy of personal and copyrighted materials, and I want to find effective solutions to these problems.

“I made my comments at yesterday’s hearing because I think that industry is not doing enough to help us find effective ways to stop people from using computers to steal copyrighted, personal or sensitive materials. I do not favor extreme remedies – unless no moderate remedies can be found. I asked the interested industries to help us find those moderate remedies.”

"The ideas in the proposed Medicare reform bills are based on government control," explained Richard E. Ralston, AFCM's executive director. "It's an attempt by the government to control health care costs by restricting medical treatment for the oldest Americans under the guise of prescription drug coverage. Patients have the right to choose and purchase the drugs they need in consultation with their doctors."

Citing Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the Bush-backed Medicare reforms, which estimates that many employers will drop their retired employees' drug coverage, Ralston pointed out that the medical profession will be deeply hurt by the changes.

"Pharmaceutical firms are one of the primary reasons why the United States has the best health care in the world," Ralston declared. "Their ability to research and produce the best drugs for treatment of catastrophic diseases will be seriously inhibited if the President signs Medicare reform. There will be practically no incentive for drug companies to produce drugs for older Americans."

Courts also look to the writings of scholars for evidence of what international law is. Compared with 1789, we now have a plethora, one might say a surfeit, of professors of international law, and they, by and large, support the notion that the law of nations deals with individuals and corporations as well as nations. They also seek aggressively to expand what international law covers, everything from the right to a healthy environment to the right to organize and bargain collectively in all countries. So much for sovereignty.

There could be no more anti-democratic way to make international law than to rest it upon the opinions of professors. That process is not only anti-constitutional and undemocratic, it is class oriented. The professoriat in social matters is well to the left of the American public; the international law they claim exists is not one Congress would define under its constitutional power. Judge Robb, concurring in Tel-Oren, put it well: courts "ought not to serve as debating clubs for professors willing to argue over what is or what is not an accepted violation of international law."

That is not the worst of it. When American courts undertake to decide what is lawful and what is unlawful in foreign countries, they risk interfering with the foreign relations of the U.S. There is certain to be resentment when a foreign nation is told by an American court that actions their courts allow are nevertheless illegal. In many of these cases, of course, there is no possibility that damages will be paid, though there may be when American corporations are held liable under a vague and constantly evolving customary international law. But a judgment that international law has been violated constitutes a propaganda victory for one view of appropriate world-wide social policy. That is a misuse of our courts to award professors and advocacy groups a moral and legal legitimacy that is not rightly theirs.

Two homeschooled teen-agers in Waltham, Mass., have consistently refused to take a mandatory assessment test demanded by the local school district, and their parents have backed up the kids' decision – a six-year stance that culminated in an early-morning standoff with government and law-enforcement officials outside their home.

According to a report in the MetroWest Daily News, social workers from the Department of Social Services and police officers confronted the family at 7:45 a.m. Thursday, demanding that George, 15, and Nyssa, 13, complete a standardized test.

As they have done in the past, the children refused to go, even though the government now has legal custody of them.

"There have been threats all along. Most families fall to that bullying by the state and the legal system," dad George Bryant Sr. told the paper. "But this has been a six-year battle between the Waltham Public Schools and our family over who is in control of the education of our children. In the end, the law of this state will protect us."

DSS worker Susan Etscovitz tried to use the fact that the Bryants technically don't have custody of their own children in her plea.

"We have legal custody of the children and we will do with them as we see fit," Etscovitz told the Bryants, according to the Daily News. "They are minors and they do what we tell them to do."

Four police officers were also at the scene and attempted to coax the Bryants into complying with the DSS worker.

One of the law-enforcement officers told the paper: "We will not physically remove the children."

According to the report, the Bryants contend that no government entity has the legal right to force their children to take standardized tests, even though DSS workers have threatened to take their children from them.

We read with interest yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial on prescription-drug legislation developing on Capitol Hill. From top to bottom, from the theoretical to the practical, Journal editors skewered the Republican direction as bad policy and politics. Their opposition to new entitlements and ever-bigger government is principled — and we agree in large part on their textbook distrust of the welfare state — but the Journal missed the mark on a few aspects of this specific issue. In 2000, George W. Bush campaigned, and in last year's election a majority of Republican House and Senate candidates promised, to deliver a prescription-drug law. A medicine subsidy for seniors is an example of politicians keeping their promises to voters.

It is important to emphasize that Republican support for a prescription-drug entitlement is not a cynical and expensive attempt to buy votes. The new policy would improve the lives of millions of Americans no longer in the workforce whose budgets are squeezed by the rising price of prescriptions

Seventy-five percent of voters think prescription drugs for seniors are a good use of taxpayer funds. In a country with a representative form of government, that counts for a lot. However, the political machinations do pay off, with good policy in the short-term and promise for real reform down the road. If Republicans pass a prescription-drug bill and win increased seats in Congress, they will have a more solid base that can be used to reinvent the failing health-care system along more market-oriented lines. That promise alone is worth the price of the current legislation.

Let's start with the amusing irony that the supporters of this giant new prescription drug benefit are many of the same folks who were only recently moaning that a $350 billion tax cut would break the budget. That tax cut will at least help the economy grow. But the new Medicare entitlement is nothing more than a wealth transfer (from younger workers to retirees) estimated to cost $400 billion over 10 years, and everyone knows even that is understated.

The real pig in the Medicare python doesn't hit until the Baby Boomers retire. Social Security and Medicare Trustee Tom Saving told us last week that the "present value" of the Senate [prescription drug] plan—the value of the entire future obligation in today's dollars—is something like two-thirds the size of the current $3.8 trillion in debt held by the public.

A universal drug benefit is neither necessary nor morally justifiable. Some 76% of seniors already have some prescription drug coverage. The average Medicare beneficiary spends an affordable $999 a year out of pocket on prescription drugs, and less than %% have out of pocket expenses over $4,000.

Human dignity means that an individual or group feels self-respect and self-worth. It is concerned with physical and psychological integrity and empowerment. Human dignity is harmed by unfair treatment premised upon personal traits or circumstances which do not relate to individual needs, capacities, or merits. It is enhanced by laws which are sensitive to the needs, capacities, and merits of different individuals, taking into account the context underlying their differences. Human dignity is harmed when individuals and groups are marginalized, ignored, or devalued, and is enhanced when laws recognize the full place of all individuals and groups within Canadian society.

According to academics and antitrust attorneys, Oracle's $5.1 billion tender offer for PeopleSoft could indeed trigger a lengthy review in the U.S. and Europe, as PeopleSoft's board argued Thursday morning when it rejected the $16- a-share bid.

But these experts found little in the prospective combination that would lead regulators to block the combination of the two software makers.

Antitrust examiners look at whether a merger will bring higher prices to customers or restrict choice and the ability of new competitors to enter a business. Many experts agree the extensive news coverage of Oracle's tender offer will leave regulators with little choice but to conduct a thorough inspection.

"In some sense, (PeopleSoft) might be making a self-fulfilling prophesy," says Andy Klevorn, a partner and antitrust attorney at Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Stolberg, referring to company's claim of a lengthy process. Regulators "will take a good look at this given the level of publicity."

West Virginia's attorney general has agreed a settlement that would end his appeal of the landmark Microsoft Corp. MSFT.O antitrust settlement, leaving Massachusetts as the final hold-out pushing for stricter sanctions, the software giant said on Monday.
West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw agreed to drop out of the appeal as part of a broad agreement that would also settle suits filed under state laws by state authorities and class action attorneys in West Virginia, Microsoft said.

Massachusetts and West Virginia had asked a federal appeals court to strike down the settlement deal and impose more stringent sanctions against Microsoft.

Last year, a lower court judge approved the settlement deal between Microsoft, the U.S. Justice Department and other states that had joined the case.

The Star Chamber Court of England stands as a symbol of arbitrary government. It operated outside the normal processes that guarded the liberty of an English subject even under the monarchy. Eschewing trial by jury, the Star Chamber arbitrarily imposed punishments like imprisonment, fines, the pillory, whipping, branding and mutilation. Parliament closed the infamous institution in 1641 but the memory of its misdeeds should never die.

In 1983, the chairman of the ABA's Administrative Law Section in congressional testimony likened the Federal Election Commission to the Star Chamber Court. The ensuing 20 years have shown the accuracy of that depiction.

The FEC oversees the regulation of American elections. No task could be more central or potentially more dangerous for a nation dedicated to self-government and the rule of law. If abused, the power of the FEC could be used to punish Americans who seek to participate in politics. Critics of the agency will scoff and say the FEC is a "toothless tiger" that is too gentle on those charged with violating election laws. If only that were true.

Defendants before the FEC have few due-process safeguards. When a complaint comes before the FEC, its general counsel makes the case against the alleged lawbreaker who has no right to appear before the commission. The general counsel gives the commission a report that summarizes and criticizes the legal arguments of the accused and answers any questions from the commissioners. This report is not given to the accused even though it may contain new arguments or information. The accused also has no right to see the documents that were the basis of the general counsel's case. The FEC does not have to reveal the witnesses against a defendant, or allow that defendant to attend witness depositions, much less provide an opportunity for cross-examination.

The FEC has long said that the normal rights accorded Americans should not apply at its agency because if an enforcement action were taken to federal court, the normal rule of law standards would apply. That is strange reasoning indeed. An enforcement agency whose work implicates vital rights should be free to ignore the rule of law during a protracted investigation because a court might later honor the rights of a citizen? This justification for exempting the FEC from the rule of law suggests the agency is arrogantly out of control.

The Department of Justice today reached a settlement with the National Council on Problem Gambling, Inc. (NCPG) that will free NCPG state affiliates to sell problem gambling products or services outside of their home states.

The Department filed a civil antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that the NCPG violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by facilitating an unlawful territorial allocation to prevent its state affiliates from selling problem gambling products or services outside of their home states. At the same time, the Department filed a consent decree that, if approved by the court, would resolve the lawsuit.

"Consumers—the governmental and individual entities—purchasing problem gambling services, as well as those who use these services, will benefit from the competition that this decree will restore," said R. Hewitt Pate, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division.

The NCPG, a national trade association whose membership includes 34 state affiliates, assists compulsive gamblers and their families through education, advocacy, information and referrals to self-help groups and lobbies Congress for funding of problem gambling programs. The NCPG's board of directors is controlled by the state affiliates, which as a group have a majority of the seats. The NCPG does not create the services offered by its affiliates, but rather each of the NCPG state affiliates independently creates and markets problem gambling services, such as training and certification programs workshops and telephone help-lines.

The Department noted that while many associations have legitimate, pro-competitive territorial allocations, in this case, the NCPG was not designing a distribution system to enhance economic efficiency.

According to the Department's complaint, since 1995, the NCPG facilitated a territorial allocation agreement on behalf of its state affiliates to prevent problem gambling service providers from crossing state lines to compete. The Complaint alleges that problem gambling service providers were threatened with sanctions or loss of their NCPG membership for bidding outside of their territory. As a result, competition among the state affiliates was curtailed, and consumers were deprived of the benefits of free and open competition.

A federal judge approved a settlement agreement Friday in a music antitrust lawsuit that will result in more than 3.5 million consumers receiving nearly $13 each.

Judge D. Brock Hornby issued a 51-page ruling in the case that began in 1996 when attorneys general across the country began investigating whether distributors and retailers had conspired to inflate CD prices.

"This settlement will put cash in the hands of millions of consumers and music CDs in libraries and schools throughout the country, and will ensure that the challenged distributor/retailer practices will not resume," Hornby wrote.

The ruling, however, does not stipulate exactly how much consumers will receive or when the checks will be distributed. More than 3.5 million consumers filed claims, now estimated at $12.63 each.

Hornby asked lawyers to present him with a report by the end of the month on how much it will cost to distribute the checks and how much each check will be.

He also deferred ruling on a plan on how millions of CDs will be distributed to the schools and libraries.

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 discounters 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, and retailers Tower Records, Musicland Stores and Transworld Entertainment - deny any wrongdoing. Attorneys representing the companies declined to testify in court.

Of the total settlement, $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, with roughly $44 million to be distributed to the public. The remaining cash will go toward distribution costs and legal fees.

The 11-member jury ruled in favor of plaintiffs who accused Mitsui and a subsidiary, along with two smaller companies, of taking part in a broad cartel that inflated the price of vitamin B-4 between 1988 and 1998, a spokeswoman for the presiding judge said.

Mitsui sells vitamin B-4 and owns an Ohio-based subsidiary called Bioproducts that manufactures the supplement used in animal and pet feeds, among other things.

The defendants will also be responsible for expenses and attorneys fees.

Mitsui has denied it had any role in the vitamin conspiracy and refused to be part of a billion-dollar, industry settlement of class-action charges against vitamin manufacturers in 1999.

Mitsui's attorney, Sutton Keany, said he will ask the judge to set aside the verdict based on the argument that the case never should have gone before a jury because it was too complex and the evidence was insufficient.

This antitrust case arises out of an agreement entered into by the defendants, Hoescht Marion Roussel, Inc., the manufacturer of the prescription drug Cardizem CD, and Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., then a potential manufacturer of a generic version of that drug. The agreement provided, in essence, that Andrx, in exchange for quarterly payments of $10 million, would refrain from marketing its generic version of Cardizem CD even after it had received FDA approval. The plaintiffs are direct and indirect purchasers of Cardizem CD who filed complaints challenging the Agreement as a violation of federal and state antitrust laws. After denying the defendants' motions to dismiss, and granting the plaintiffs' motions for partial summary judgment, the district court certified [the following question] for interlocutory appeal:
* * *
In determining whether Plaintiffs' motions for partial judgment were properly granted, whether the Defendants' September 24, 1997 Agreement constitutes a restraint of trade that is illegal per se under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and under the corresponding state antitrust laws at issue in this litigation.

[Answer]: Yes. The Agreement whereby HMR paid Andrx $40 million per year not to enter the United States market for Cardizem CD and its generic equivalents is a horizontal market allocation agreement and, as such, is per se illegal under the Sherman Act and under the corresponding state antitrust laws. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the issue of whether the Agreement was per se illegal.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with contemporary legal scholarship, Posner, who joined the 7th circuit in the early 1980's, is one of the most important legal scholars of his generation, and has written an endless supply of articles and books on virtually every legal subject imaginable, all the while continuing to produce a steady stream of extremely well written appellate opinions, which have made him perhaps the most influential lower court judge living today. He is a man of supreme intelligence, boundless energy and enormous learning. It is impossible for me to list the number of contributions he has made to legal scholarship. The quality of his accomplishments is such that he would grace the Court, and not the other way around. It would be fitting too, for him to be able to finally take a seat on the same court as his acknowledged idol and role model, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Best Buy Co. is suing Visa and Mastercard for allegedly violating antitrust and unfair business practices laws regarding plastic card payments.

Best Buy contends Visa and MasterCard's rules unfairly force it to accept their check cards and prepaid cards if it also chooses to accept their credit cards. The company claims that system forces it to pay high prices for taking check and prepaid cards and harms competition.

Visa and MasterCard have agreed to pay $3 billion to thousands of retailers to settle a 1996 lawsuit that accused the credit card companies of abusing their market power in charging high merchant fees. But Best Buy and a handful of other retailers opted out of that class-action lawsuit to pursue their own claims.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is a more subtle type of antitrust law, which claims to promote competition and eliminate the possibility of an emerging monopoly through government intervention. A common misconception is that the government has to protect its citizens from big business through the prevention of monopolies. This is completely unnecessary in a capitalist economy. Any company that manages to drive away competition cannot set prices as high as it likes. Were a company foolish enough to raise prices excessively, a free society allows for the emergence of new competition that is encouraged to charge a fair price, meeting immediate success by providing a cheaper alternative to the abusive monopoly.

Even if such a built-in safeguard did not exist, one must ask about the cost of enacting anti-monopoly legislation. Would it be moral to let the government intervene on a situation in fear that a company that has sole reign in a market will act oppressively? In his essay, "Antitrust," Alan Greenspan writes, "The effective purpose, the hidden intent, and the actual practice of the antitrust laws in the United States have led to the condemnation of the productive and efficient members of our society because they are productive and efficient."

America boasts the fact that it is a country in which its citizens are free to work hard to achieve their goals, dreams and happiness. Is there some sort of "fine print" on the Declaration of Independence that says the pursuit of liberty and happiness exists for everybody but a successful businesses? Instead, it says only a few lines afterward "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

Evil is not to be tolerated in a just society, and if our government allows economic success to be a punishable offense, it is the public's privilege and obligation to alter the government by pushing for the abolishment of such legislation.

After weathering the 1998 Clinton-Lewinsky debacle, where it was proven beyond any doubt that our country's chief law enforcement official, President Clinton, lied repeatedly under oath, I do not think we should tolerate lying and obstruction of justice by those in the public eye. What better way to mend the wounds of 1998 by instituting a zero tolerance policy for obstruction of justice by public figures?

Our system of justice is largely a voluntary one. Investigators and prosecutors depend on witness compunction, or fear, to tell the truth, especially under oath. The resources do not exist to punish everyone who intentionally misleads every criminal investigator. If a healthy respect for the truth does not permeate our society, the administration of justice becomes impossible. Setting an example through the use of a public persona such as Martha Stewart is a good idea. Her prevarications should be punished, no matter how innocuous the underlying crime.

Most people understand that when businessmen get together to limit competition, the public interest is rarely served, and the same is true of government bureaucrats. EU officials convinced their bureaucratic lackeys at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to develop the concept of "harmful tax competition" to justify trying to force all of the world's countries to jack up their tax rates to French-like levels.

The head of a national teacher-college association circulated a copy of a confidential teacher-certification exam, undermining a Bush administration initiative to certify professionals without education degrees as teachers.

Education leaders said David G. Imig, president of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, distributed the exam at a March 17 meeting hosted by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in Palo Alto, Calif.

The exam was being confidentially field-tested for the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, also known simply as the American Board.

Mr. Imig declined to tell The Times how he obtained the exam.

Suzanne M. Wilson, a Carnegie senior scholar and education professor at Michigan State University who attended the meeting, said Mr. Imig circulated the exam to rally criticism.

"It wasn't good. ... The test for [the American Board] had running through its bones the ideology of traditionalists ... the framework of direct instruction," she said.

Mr. Imig's use of the stolen American Board field-test, developed by ACT Inc. of Iowa City, forced the American Board to scuttle the test and sever its relationship with the ACT, which lost $1.2 million because the test was compromised.

The Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists -- which are pushing to consolidate -- issued a joint statement using the FCC action as solid evidence that their unions need to merge for self-protection.

"Today's ruling by the FCC makes the consolidation of SAG and AFTRA even more urgent and necessary," Melissa Gilbert, SAG's national president, and John Connolly, her counterpart at AFTRA, said in their joint release. "The FCC has voted 'yes' to giving media companies even more power. Now, actors, broadcasters and recording artists must respond to this action by voting 'YES' for new power of our own. We must approve consolidation so that we can match strength with strength.

"By joining together, our members will have a stronger, more effective union with the clout to fight for more jobs and higher wages," Gilbert and Connolly stressed. "That's why it's no surprise the media conglomerates don't want us to consolidate. Our members know employers will not look out for our best interests, and the employer agenda should not be a factor in deciding our future."

[i]s an implicit confession that the current regime has failed. Yet rather than address the source of that failure—which is a cornucopia of price control schemes over health care—this bill, in key areas, simply repackages that failure and tries to sell it as an improvement. Rather than acknowledge and protect the freedom of doctors to negotiate their own price terms, this bill subjects them to yet another set of complex and onerous regulations. To subject the exercise of a doctor’s legitimate rights to regulatory approval effectively denies these rights. Specifically, the bill denies doctors the unrestricted right to collectively negotiate price and compensation terms with health plans. Only if the health plan possesses a certain market share—a figure that has a history of being arbitrarily manipulated by hostile regulators—are doctors permitted to enjoy even limited rights to control their economic destiny.

The chief executive of J.D. Edwards on Monday said Oracle's hostile bid for his company's intended acquirer PeopleSoft would ``drive out'' competition from a key area of business software and raise ``serious anti-trust issues.''

Robert Dutkowsky, J.D. Edwards' president and chief executive, said that Oracle's hostile bid would require an extensive review by antitrust regulators in the United States and European Union because it would eliminate PeopleSoft as one of Oracle's biggest rivals. A week ago, PeopleSoft had said it intended to buy Denver-based J.D. Edwards in a stock deal now valued at around $1.84 billion.

Organizations in Tennessee will split $5.6 million as part of a national settlement with vitamin manufacturers who allegedly engaged in price-fixing.

The Tennessee money, which represents the largest antitrust settlement in the state's history, will go to 75 organizations who'll use it to improve health and nutrition.

The alleged price-fixing pushed up costs for vitamin tablets as well as cereal, meat and baby food enriched with vitamins.

"We are pleased so many Tennesseans will benefit from such an unfortunate situation," Tennessee Attorney General Paul Summers says.

Antitrust enforcers Monday recommended that the government abolish key regulations on airline computer reservations systems (CRS), saying they have failed to foster competition in the industry.

The Justice Department advised the Transportation Department, which is weighing the matter, that the long-standing rules may have imposed unnecessary costs on consumers and should not be extended after they expire next January.

Justice officials recommended that transportation regulators abandon price regulations that require reservation systems to charge all airlines the same prices for the same services. They argue that the price rules have not led to competitive CRS fees and may have hurt the ability of some airlines to negotiate lower ones.

There are four CRS companies operating in the United States, and airlines remain heavily dependent on them to sell tickets, even though Internet sales have become more popular. CRS operations provide the essential link between airlines and travel agents.

"The language of threats and force won't work against Iran. It will only backfire," [Iranian foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi] told a press conference.

A nonprofit corporation representing approximately 1,000 participating physicians in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas metropolitan area has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that collective bargaining on behalf of its members has led to decreased competition and increased prices for the provision of medical services to the area's consumers. Under the terms of the proposed consent order reached with the Commission and announced today, Southwest Physician Associates (SPA) will be barred from jointly negotiating fees and other competitively significant terms on behalf of its physicians, unless certain conditions are met.

"The FTC remains committed to stopping fee-fixing and other forms of anticompetitive conduct among health care industry participants," said Joe Simons, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. "We believe that SPA's actions were in violation of the law and caused consumers to pay illegally inflated prices for medical services."

The Government Printing Office will continue its century-old monopoly on federal agencies’ printing jobs, under an agreement the Bush administration announced Friday. The agreement ends outgoing Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels’ year-long quest to let agencies avoid using the printing office as their middle man.

Daniels agreed to let the printing office keep its monopoly. He even agreed to curtail or eliminate current executive branch printing operations that do some of agencies’ printing work in-house. In return, GPO chief Bruce James agreed to set up a Web-based ordering system that will let government buyers deal directly with private printers, which will negotiate discounted overarching agreements with the printing office. The system is modeled after the General Services Administration’s supply schedules. The printing office will collect a 3 percent rebate from printers to fund the cost of the system.

“It gives agencies more freedom and flexibility in selecting printers,” James said.

Richard Yamarone, economist with Argus Research Corp., said the financial markets are mistaken to see signs of recovery in yesterday's report, which showed a marked downtrend in hiring that he expects to continue for the rest of the year.

"Businesses cannot spend what they don't have," he said. "Anemic economic growth will not be sufficient enough to provide the necessary gains in corporate profitability, which are needed to fuel greater business investment and new hiring."

The U.S. Justice Department has entered the fray between Seattle's two daily newspapers, acknowledging yesterday that it is investigating whether the unwinding of their joint operating agreement would violate antitrust laws.

The federal agency, which approved the original agreement between The Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer more than 20 years ago, will "look at all relevant evidence," said a Justice Department spokeswoman, Christine Jacobs.

The Justice Department has already started gathering information about the situation. Rowland Thompson, executive director of Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, a trade group whose members include both Seattle papers, said Justice Department attorney Maurice Stucke contacted him Thursday. Stucke and another federal attorney, Carol Bell, are leading the investigation, a Justice Department staff member in Washington, D.C., said.

"He's doing a full community background check, as far as I can tell, about what public sentiment is and how people view the two papers, and if there are community groups that have a position on it," Thompson said.

Under the joint operating agreement, or JOA, The Times handles printing, advertising, production and circulation for the P-I, in exchange for a larger percentage of the papers' joint profits. The JOA, originally intended to keep the P-I from failing, began in 1983 and was revised in 1999.

The Seattle Times Co. moved in late April to end the JOA after what it said were three years of financial losses at The Times.

The P-I, owned by The Hearst Corp., had filed suit the day before, claiming that The Times has no right to end the agreement because its losses were the result of extraordinary circumstances and didn't demonstrate that the JOA is untenable. An end to the agreement could lead to the P-I's closure. A hearing is set for July 18.

"Today, doctors routinely treat their patients with prescription drugs, preventive care and groundbreaking medical devices — but Medicare coverage has not kept pace with these changes. Our goal is to give seniors the best, most innovative care.

"This will require a strong, up-to-date Medicare system that relies on innovation and competition, not bureaucratic rules and regulations," he said.

A U.S. congressman has asked the Justice Department to examine whether cable giant Comcast's refusal to air some DSL advertisements by rival Qwest Communications is anti-competitive.

Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., spurred by Qwest's complaints, wrote in a May 19 letter to the agency's antitrust unit that ''Comcast's discriminatory advertising practices should be closely examined and . . . disallowed.'' Boucher, a veteran on telecom policy, said in an interview that the consumer impact ''can be very real if this practice becomes more pervasive.'' He has not heard from Justice, which did not comment.

For months, Qwest has complained to Comcast, the No. 1 cable operator, that it unfairly restricts or refuses ads. They vie for broadband customers in many markets.

Comcast says it runs DSL ads that are pitched as part of a bundle of communications services. It doesn't accept DSL-only ads.

Three other big cable operators, Cox, Charter and Adelphia, say the decision to run rival ads is made case by case. Cable operators have long refused DSL ads, arguing that the First Amendment protects that right -- and that phone companies can reach customers via local TV, radio and billboards. Critics warn antitrust concerns might come into play as cable firms consolidate.

Dear Rep. Boucher:

I read with interest USA Today’s coverage of your letter to the Department of Justice calling for an antitrust investigation of Comcast Corporation for refusing to air DSL advertisements by rival Qwest Communications.

There is a certain degree of irony in your call for antitrust investigation of Comcast. I doubt you feel obligated to use your campaign apparatus to communicate the views of your political opponents, yet you seem to have no compunction in demanding Comcast use its assets to communicate the message of its business rivals. It would seem you believe that you have the right to un-coerced control of the organization you have built, but not Comcast.

Our organization has closely monitored the antitrust enforcement efforts of the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission for over five years. We have observed first hand antitrust law’s use in attacking great firms, such as Microsoft, for attempting to improve its products, and simple individuals, like Ms. Marcia Brauchler, a Colorado woman earning less than $30,000 a year, but who was accused of being a monopolist by FTC antitrust enforcers because she allegedly violated its shifting mandates as she helped physicians negotiate their contracts with health plans. As long as antitrust law denies the rights of a businessman to complete control of his work and property, it is a law open to wholesale abuse.

Your position on the Comcast case ought to have been that Comcast has every right to control its communication network, and is under no obligation to service the parasitical needs of its business rivals. Yet by your letter, you have turned a simple business question into a political question. I challenge you to reconcile your position with the principle of individual rights. Every individual has a right to pursue his own self-interest in the market. To claim otherwise is to say that we are a nation of surfs obligated to serve the whims of our neighbors. I would hope your vision of America is more profound than that.

Respectfully Submitted,

Nicholas Provenzo

ScanSoft Inc.'s $132 million acquisition of SpeechWorks International Inc. received antitrust clearance from the U.S. Justice Department, the company said Friday.

Shares of both companies rose on the news.

ScanSoft shares traded at $6.16, up 26 cents, or 4 percent, Friday morning on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

SpeechWorks shares traded at $5.17, up 25 cents, or 5 percent, Friday morning on the Nasdaq.

ScanSoft said the deal must still be approved by shareholders of both companies, who will vote at special meetings after the registration statement filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The acquisition has already received unanimous approval from both companies' boards, and ScanSoft said it expects the deal to close sometime in August.

ScanSoft, based in Peabody, Mass., makes software that scans paper documents and turns them into digital computer files. Its acquisition of SpeechWorks, which makes speech recognition and text-to-speech programs, will add to SpeechWorks line of voice-related programs.

With the resignation of Howell Raines from the NY Times, and with the Masters having come and gone, I'm willing to bet that Augusta has weathered the firestorm. Perhaps we'll get to see if the controvery was a real one, or a newsroom/editorial-driven one.

The lawsuit, filed in state Superior Court in Hartford, Conn., says Miami and Boston College professed loyalty to their conference while concocting a "deliberate scheme to destroy the Big East and abscond with the collective value of all that has been invested and created in the Big East."

Big East schools went ahead with millions of dollars in renovations and upgrades under the assumption they would be part of a healthy conference for years to come, the lawsuit contends.

The lawsuit was filed by Pittsburgh, Connecticut, West Virginia, Virginia Tech and Rutgers against the ACC, Miami and Boston College. Syracuse is part of the potential ACC expansion but was not included in the lawsuit because plaintiffs said they found no evidence the school made promises to stay in the Big East.

The ACC did not immediately return phone messages seeking comment.

The five Big East schools are suing for financial damages and want an injunction to prevent Miami and Boston College from leaving.

A federal grand jury in Dallas today indicted the former president of DuCoa, L.P., based in Highland, Illinois, with participating in a nationwide conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate customers in the choline chloride industry, the Department of Justice announced.

Choline chloride, commonly known as vitamin B4, which is sold by manufacturers and resellers to customers in the animal nutrition industry, is administered to animals to ensure their proper growth and development.

According to the indictment filed today in U. S. District Court in Dallas, Daniel T. Rose of Highland, Illinois, agreed with his co-conspirators to suppress and eliminate competition in the choline chloride market in the United States from approximately August 1997 through September 29, 1998.

"This is the eighth prosecution involving choline chloride and the 30th case arising from the long running vitamins investigation being conducted by the Division's Dallas Field Office," said R. Hewitt Pate, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division.

Rose is charged with participating in meetings and conversations with his co-conspirators to discuss the prices and volume of choline chloride, agreeing to set choline chloride prices, agreeing to allocate choline chloride customers and rigging bids for contracts to supply choline chloride.

Rose is charged with violating Section One of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison and a fine of $350,000. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

Martha Stewart was charged with securities fraud and obstruction of justice on Wednesday, stemming from her sale of shares of ImClone Systems Inc., a biotechnology company run by a close friend.

The charges, which could carry penalties of up to 10 years in jail, marked a stunning blow to Stewart. A former stockbroker, Stewart built a catering company into a media and design empire and became a household name while courting a celebrity lifestyle.

Stewart, who has said she is innocent of any wrongdoing, was also indicted on charges of making false statements.

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators opposed to television networks expanding their reach expressed confidence they had the votes to roll back a rule adopted by communications regulators on Monday.

The group said it was pressing ahead with legislation to retain limits keeping a network from owning stations that together reach more than 35 percent of the national audience.

The three Republican members of the Federal Communications Commission voted earlier on Monday against their two Democrat colleagues to raise the limit to 45 percent as part of a wider easing of decades-old media ownership rules.

But Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi told a news conference there was no partisanship in Senate opposition to the new cap.

"A lot of Republicans, in fact, probably most of the Republicans in Congress, would not agree with this decision," said Lott, the former Republican leader of the Senate.

The Senate Commerce Committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday on media ownership where all five FCC commissioners are due to testify.

[. . .] Meanwhile, two key members of the Senate Judiciary Committee expressed "serious reservations" about the FCC decision and said future media mergers should get close scrutiny from antitrust regulators at the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission.

Sens. Mike DeWine, a Republican from Ohio, and Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin, issued a joint statement saying the agencies should "stand guard to prevent deals which will substantially injure competition in these industries that are so vital in providing the news and information relied upon by millions of Americans."

DeWine and Kohl are the chairman and ranking Democrat on the panel's antitrust subcommittee, and they said they plan to hold a hearing on the FCC rule changes "to examine its implications for competition."

It covers the high cost of making it possible for Americans to reach out and touch someone from mountains, swamps and other remote areas. It subsidizes phone bills for poor people and technology at schools and libraries.

There is a finite, shared medium available for broadcasting, like the oceans for instance in shipping. Who owns the oceans? The first people to set anchor in a 4 mile by 4 mile square tract of water? No, it's considered "commons".

The FCC strongly affirmed its core value of limiting broadcast ownership to promote viewpoint diversity. The FCC stated that “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.” The FCC said multiple independent media owners are needed to ensure a robust exchange of news, information, and ideas among Americans.

The FCC developed a “Diversity Index” in order to permit a more sophisticated analysis of viewpoint diversity in this proceeding. The index is “consumer-centric” in that it is built on data about how Americans use different media to obtain news. Importantly, this data also enabled the FCC to establish local broadcast ownership rules that recognize significant differences in media availability in small versus large markets. The objective is to ensure that citizens in all areas of the country have a diverse array of media outlets available to them.

District lawyers argue that consumers were put "at risk of substantial harm" after CVS Corp. last year bought a competing pharmacy in Northwest Washington and promptly closed it down, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday.

The city filed the suit in Superior Court, alleging that CVS violated D.C. antitrust regulations when it purchased an Anchor Pharmacy in the Palisades neighborhood in March 2002.

The Anchor store was at 4883 MacArthur Blvd. NW, a few doors from a CVS store. When CVS closed its acquisition, it left a sign directing customers to its other location.

In a seven-page filing, lawyers for the Office of the Corporation Counsel allege that consumers are at risk "because CVS Corporation can profitably choose to reduce service or increase prices."

The city has asked the court to direct CVS and Anchor companies to "provide monetary incentives sufficient to induce the opening of a competing retail pharmacy."

A CVS spokesman reacted with outrage.

"The suit is totally void of merit," Todd Andrews said.

"Anchor made its own decision to close because the location was not profitable. We purchased the assets after they approached us to purchase them. We are deeply disappointed that the District's legal office decided to take this action."

City attorneys believe differently. They contend that the Anchor Pharmacy was not a failing store and that CVS figured it would be easier to buy out its competitor than defeat it through competitive business practices.

"Defendants monopolized or attempted to monopolize trade or commerce," states the lawsuit, which also names Anchor Pharmacies Inc. of Westminster, Md., and the CVS store on MacArthur Boulevard as defendants.