President Bush says Americans should respect homosexuals, but he wants to make sure marriage is defined strictly as a union between a man and a woman.

Government lawyers are exploring measures to enshrine that definition in the law, the president said Wednesday.

"I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other," he said.

Still, he urged Americans not to ostracize gays.

"I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said, invoking a biblical passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew.

"I think it is very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country," Bush said.

Alabama’s new governor is trying to persuade voters to approve the biggest tax increase in state history by telling them it is their Christian duty. And for a state in the Bible Belt, that might seem like a winning strategy.

Instead, Republican Gov. Bob Riley’s $1.2 billion tax package is alienating even the Christian Coalition and other supporters, who see Riley as a Judas. Riley had consistently opposed new taxes while in Congress.

Riley says the tax increase is needed to erase Alabama’s biggest deficit since the Depression and improve education. The plan also seeks to help the poor by raising the income level at which people have to begin paying state taxes.

Alabama’s threshold for paying state taxes is the lowest in the nation at just $4,600 for a family of four and has been unchanged since 1982.

Riley, a Southern Baptist, says Alabama has taxed its poorest too harshly for too long.

"According to our Christian ethics, we’re supposed to love God, love each other and help take care of the poor," he said. "It is immoral to charge somebody making $5,000 an income tax."

SpamArrest, which specializes in blocking junk e-mail or "spam," filed papers to trademark its corporate name early this year. Hormel then sent the company a warning to drop the word "Spam." SpamArrest refused.

"If you ask most people on the street, they're going to say junk e-mail as opposed to the luncheon meat as their first description of what spam is. I think they're overstepping their bounds," said Brian Cartmell, SpamArrest's chief executive.

Cartmell says his company's use of the word has nothing to do with Hormel's product, first produced in 1937. Hormel officials disagree, arguing that the company has carefully protected and invested in the brand name, and that the public could confuse the meat product with the technology company. It filed its challenges in late June.

Hormel acknowledges that its brand name has taken on new meaning, and it outlines on its Web site what it considers acceptable uses of the word.

College basketball got a rare dose of offseason good news Monday night when an Ohio federal judge rescinded the NCAA's 2-in-4 rule.

That means tournaments such as the Maui Invitational, Great Alaska Shootout, Preseason NIT, Coaches vs. Cancer Classic and any other in-season exempted events are more likely to include at least one to two major-name teams.

In a 38-page ruling, Judge Edmund A. Sargus ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (Gazelle Group, Inc., Worldwide Basketball and Sport Tours, Inc., Sports Tours International, and Sports Promotions, LLC). The lawsuit by the plaintiffs started on Dec. 21, 2000, against the NCAA's 2-in-4 rule that restricted teams to two exempted events in a four-year cycle.

Some schools were grandfathered into the rule and were allowed to play three such events in a four-year cycle. An exempted event is a tournament that counts as only one game on the maximum 28-game schedule for Division I teams.

Sargus said the 2-in-4 rule was in violation of Sections One and Two of the Sherman Act. Sargus said in his ruling that, "The NCAA is hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing the 'two-in-four' rule.'' This means that teams are eligible to play in a certified event on an annual basis, like they were prior to the 2-in-4 rule in 2000. But the NCAA rule limiting teams to one of these events a season is still in place. Teams cannot play in an exempted event in the same season that they go on a foreign trip.

Sargus put off a ruling on this case in July, 2002 to see how the rule would affect the tournaments in Year Three of the legislation.

"Last season was the turning point,'' said Bill Markovits, attorney for the plaintiffs. "The judge was looking to see what would happen and he saw what we predicted, and that was a decrease in output and quality of events.''

Markovits said the NCAA certified 28 events but only 17 were able to go forward because the other 11 couldn't fill their fields with eligible teams. There were 25 events the previous season. The number of exempt games decreased from 251 to 144.

Federal regulators upheld charges Monday that two companies illegally fixed prices when they joined forces to sell recordings of the opera stars known as The Three Tenors.

The Federal Trade Commission rejected an appeal by subsidiaries of French corporation Vivendi Universal and supported a June 2002 ruling by an administrative law judge who ordered the companies to stop anticompetitive practices.

The case involves 1998 recordings of the tenors Luciano Pavarotti, Jose Carreras and Placido Domingo performing at the World Cup soccer finals in Paris.

In 1997, Warner Communications Inc. formed a joint venture with PolyGram Music Group, which was later acquired by Vivendi. Warner was to distribute the recordings in the United States, while PloyGram would handle overseas distribution.

The FTC said the two companies feared videos and albums of the 1998 concert wouldn't sell as well as those from the trio's first two World Cup appearances in 1990 and 1994. So the companies agreed to restrict discounts and advertising for the older performances before and after the release of the 1998 recordings, the FTC said.

"Restraints on price discounting and advertising are inherently suspect," FTC Chairman Timothy Muris said in the ruling. He said the agreement between companies sought to deprive consumers of the "vigorous competitive offering of certain products to induce them to choose others."

The FTC voted 5-0 to uphold the ruling against Vivendi's subsidiaries. That ruling found that the agreement with Warner violated federal antitrust law, because the two earlier recordings were not jointly produced by the two companies.

Nessun Dorma! – None must sleep!

This Puccini aria, sung by tenor Luciano Pavarotti in the recording at the heart of our case, announces the edict of the Chinese princess Turandot that no one in Peking may sleep until she solves her problem. The princess has made a bad
judgment – agreeing to marry the first suitor who, at peril of death, can answer three riddles. Although this plan once had served her purposes, someone has now answered the riddles, and Turandot is encumbered with a product she neither wants nor can market. She grasps at one last chance to stop the wedding, by guessing the name of the suitor, and will stop at nothing to obtain the information.

Our story takes place not on the opera stage, but in the business world of operatic recordings. The drama is not so stirring, and no one loses his head, at least not literally. The story is troubling, nonetheless. Two recording companies agree to form a joint venture to market a new recording, by three of the world’s foremost singers, and to split the costs and profits. By itself, such an agreement, even by competitors, is often beneficial, because it helps bring a new product to market. Here, however, the story turns dark when it becomes apparent that the new recording will repeat much of the repertoire of existing recordings, diminishing its marketing potential and worrying the recording companies. While other businesses might have worked harder to develop an improved or more distinctive product to attract greater consumer interest, our protagonists chose another route. They agreed to restrict their marketing of competing products that they respectively controlled – products that were clearly outside the joint venture they had formed. They imposed a moratorium on discounting and promotion of those recordings that might otherwise siphon off sales of the new product. We now consider whether such an agreement unreasonably restrains trade in violation of the antitrust laws. We conclude that it does.

A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

The balance of harms, which is a question I am not required to consider given my view of the merits, is nonetheless a factor which favors the government. A wrongful denial of injunction would, for a year or more, inflict irreparable damage on consumers and, in all probability, leave us with a Raflatac 2nd that could not be divided back into the entities from which it was formed. A wrongful grant of injunction leaves Raflatac no worse off than it is now. Instead of buying market share, they can earn it in the customary way. MACtac’s declining condition will either be reversed or its slack will be taken up by other producers–the existing price competition will be diminished little or not at all. I find the public interest in having competitive markets is served by preventing the merger.

Although “[i]t is regrettable that antitrust cases are decided on the basis of theoretical guesses as to what particular market-structure characteristics portend for competition, . . . to place on the government an insuperable burden of proof is not the answer.” Rockford, 898 F.2d at 1286. “The principles of civil procedure do not require that the plaintiff make an airtight case, only that his case satisfy some minimum threshold of persuasiveness and be better than the defendant’s case.” Id. I find that the government has met this “minimum threshold.”

When it gets this close to the trading deadline almost everyone is caught up in the frenzy and becomes obsessed with who is getting whom. Even flight attendants can catch the trading bug.

On the Mets flight from Philadelphia to Montreal Tuesday night -- just hours after the Pirates had traded Kenny Lofton, Aramis Ramirez and Scott Sauerbeck -- there was an excited ruckus in the rear of the Mets charter.

One of the flight attendants came down and asked why they were so happy.

"We got Qusay and Uday," Al Leiter exclaimed.

"I'm sorry," the flight attendant responded, "I don't know baseball. Are they any good?"

The players broke up in laughter.

"It was hysterical," Mike Piazza said. "It spread through the plane in a nano-second."

During this year's Tour de France, Lance Armstrong fell because some "fan" all but assaulted him. Jan Ullrich, Armstrong's #1 challenger, stopped and waited for Lance to remount his bike. Most commentators smiled at this exceptional display of sportsmanship.

But was it right? I'm not so sure. Armstrong was the victim here mainly because he's the leader and perhaps because he dons the red, white, and blue. But the rules are the rules (or, perhaps, the umpires are the rules?).

Imagine if moments after the Jeffrey Meier incident, while the umps are calling it a home run, Joe Torre calls out to Derek Jeter to "fix the injustice." Jeter knows what he means, and on the way around the basepaths, clearly -- and I mean runs across the pitcher's mound -- misses second base.

The reaction, at least in New York, would be of utter disgust. And probably rightfully so. But the reaction from Ullrich's concession is across-the-board positive. Why is that?

Detroit Lions president Matt Millen was fined $200,000 by the NFL on Friday for not interviewing any minority candidates before hiring coach Steve Mariucci.

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue sent a letter to Millen informing him of the fine.

After coach Marty Mornhinweg was fired by the Lions in January, Mariucci was the only person interviewed for the job. The team said five minority candidates turned down interviews because it appeared inevitable Mariucci would be hired.

"While certain of the difficulties that you encountered in seeking to schedule interviews with minority candidates were beyond your control, you did not take sufficient steps to satisfy the commitment that you had made,'' Tagliabue wrote.

Tagliabue also has said that future failures to interview minority candidates for a head coaching opening could lead to fines of $500,000 or higher as "conduct detrimental'' to the NFL.

"The Clear Channel matter is one of importance to us," Pate said at an antitrust oversight hearing. "We have an open investigation and we're going to continue to pursue that."

Pate's comments came in response to complaints by Rep. Howard Berman, a Democrat from California, who said attorneys at the department had failed to follow up on antitrust complaints he referred to them more than a year ago.

They sent letters to Baskin-Robbins Inc., Ben & Jerry's Homemade Holdings Inc., Cold Stone Creamery, the Haagen-Dazs Shoppes Inc., TCBY and Friendly Ice Cream Corp., telling the chains to add healthier alternatives and put nutritional facts on their store menu boards or face potential litigation.

"Your failure to disclose such obviously material information as unusually large calorie and saturated-fat loads may violate state consumer-protection laws and/or your common-law duty to disclose material facts, and may invite lawsuits from concerned consumers, legal-action organizations, or even state officials," read one letter addressed to Haagen-Dazs President David Keil.

"Jessica Lynch, the wounded Army private whose ordeal in Iraq was hyped into a media fiction of U.S. heroism, was set for an emotional homecoming on Tuesday . . . Media critics say the TV cameras will not show the return of an injured soldier so much as a reality-TV drama co-produced by U.S. government propaganda and credulous reporters."

I would like to make it abundantly clear that somebody at Reuters wrote the story, not me.

I may not be a member of the world's largest multi-media news agency, but I learned at West Virginia University how to report fairly, which is what I thought I was doing for Reuters last week.

Apparently, when Reuters asked me last week if they could use my byline, they weren't talking about the story I wrote for them last week. They were talking about a story I never wrote.

That was the misunderstanding.

By the way, I asked Reuters to remove my byline. They didn't.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly cautioned the software maker during a court hearing that she will continue to monitor its behavior under the agreement but acknowledged that Microsoft "most certainly has been responsive in many areas, and progress has been made." She set another court hearing for October.

"I am going to watch closely," the judge said.

[. . .]Kollar-Kotelly urged government lawyers to tell her if they believe Microsoft fails to comply with sanctions under the settlement. A Microsoft lawyer, Rick Rule, told the judge that the company has spent "an enormous commitment of resources" to abide by the agreement and that top executives believe compliance "is an important corporate goal."

Supporters of AmeriCorps yesterday pleaded with Congress to provide the beleaguered program with an extra $100 million this year after House appropriators rejected a proposal to do so Monday.

The talk among lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, however, was that AmeriCorps will end up getting some of the extra money.

"That's what I hear," said Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, who sits on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees AmeriCorps. "I hear the White House is going to weigh in and put back some of the money."

"Practically all choices made by consenting adults regarding their own sexual practices [are] a matter of personal liberty and thus beyond the reach of state control," H. Louis Sirkin told Common Pleas Judge Richard A. Niehaus in Cincinnati in presenting his view of the Supreme Court's 6-3 June decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

Judge Niehaus reserved decision on Mr. Sirkin's 15-page motion and allowed the trial of Shawn Jenkins of Cincinnati to enter a second day yesterday.

"It's our position that [the ruling] doesn't apply to the seller in obscenity prosecutions," Mr. Allen said. Mr. Jenkins, he said, runs a store that sells videos and is not a purchaser viewing them at home.

"I can't remember the last time in this county a person was prosecuted for owning an obscene videotape. It's the person who's selling or distributing, or pandering, if you will." This suggests that Mr. Sirkin is distorting the sodomy ruling.

July 23 (Bloomberg) -- The European Commission's handling of mergers hasn't been ``too tough,'' even after vetoing deals worth more than $200 billion in four years, the commission's newly appointed chief competition economist said in an interview.

Berlin university professor Lars-Hendrik Roeller, who takes up the newly created post Sept. 1, also cast doubt on cost savings claimed by companies to justify mergers and said a greater voice should be given to consumers.

``You can't say that European competition authorities have been too tough,'' Roeller said in a televised interview with Bloomberg News in Berlin. ``It's less a matter of changing course than of using economic arguments to underpin decisions in individual cases.''

Competition Commissioner Mario Monti created the post as part of an antitrust revamp amid criticism that the European Union's regulatory arm abused its powers in vetoing mergers including General Electric Co.'s $47 billion bid for Honeywell International Inc., the first time the EU killed a U.S.-approved takeover.

Roeller's appointment comes amid a pickup in merger activity worldwide, including aluminum producer Alcan Inc.'s hostile 3.4 billion-euro ($3.9 billion) bid for Pechiney SA -- an attempt to revive a takeover that regulators scuttled in 2000.

Nevertheless, Roeller said the acceptance by the commission of the need to assess so-called ``efficiencies'' in mergers brings the EU merger-review model closer to the U.S.

``The job of the new chief economist is to make this concrete,'' said Roeller. ``The goal of the reform is to focus more on efficiency gains.''

Roeller wants to see a greater focus on consumers when assessing mergers. That's in line with Monti's plans to give special access to consumer groups to antitrust reviews.

``We're not setting policy for companies, we're setting it for consumers,'' he said. ``Mergers only make sense if the consumer benefits, and that only occurs if there are synergies.''

In order to facilitate implementation of new rules governing agreements between companies that fall short of full mergers, the commission will later today issue six new guidelines on economic analysis, the scope of application of the rules and relations with other regulatory bodies.

The commission is also planning to make it easier for consumers to lodge complaints and provide information on suspected cartels. The commission will then have 40 days to inform the complainant of its decision and decide whether to open an investigation.

The more I read emails or talk to anti-war types, I get a sense that 9/11 never really happened. Or if it happened, it meant nothing more than a discrete crime with discrete criminals who alone deserved justice. The notion that it meant that we were and are actually at war with a series of terrorist entities and the tyrannies that support them never truly took hold on the far left (or right). As the months have passed, their complacency and denial have undoubtedly metastasized among others as 9/11 recedes from our collective consciousness and its emotional wound begins to heal. These people, it's worth remembering, believe that the exercise of American military power is almost always more morally problematic than any foreign tyranny or even a serious security threat to the homeland.

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-2215
July 9, 2003

Mr. Ward Connerly
American Civil Rights Coalition
P.O. Box 188350
Sacramento, CA 95818

Mr. Connerly:

The people of Michigan have a simple message to you: go home and stay there. We do not need you stirring up trouble where none exists.

Michiganders do not take kindly to your ignorant meddling in our affairs. We have no need for itinerant publicity seekers, non-resident troublemakers or self-aggrandizing out-of-state agitators. You have created enough mischief in your own state to last a lifetime.

We reject your “black vs. white” politics that were long ago discarded to the ash heap of history. Your brand of divisive racial politics has no place in Michigan, or in our society. So Mr. Connerly, take your message of hate and fear, division and destruction and leave. Go home and stay there, you’re not welcome here.

With every good wish,

Sincerely yours,

S/

John D. Dingell
Member of Congress

The music industry has issued at least 871 federal subpoenas against computer users this month suspected of illegally sharing music files on the Internet, with roughly 75 new subpoenas being approved each day, U.S. court officials said Friday.

The effort represents early steps in the music industry's contentious plan to file civil lawsuits aimed at crippling online piracy.

Forget about a college football playoff for now.

The committee overseeing changes to the Bowl Championship Series won't consider using a tournament to determine the national champion despite pleas to open up the postseason to more schools.

The BCS Presidential Oversight Committee on Monday directed the six conference commissioners to come up with proposals for changing the BCS without a playoff.

"I'm skeptical a national champion could be determined in a playoff without infringing on a student athlete's welfare," said Penn State president Graham Spanier, a member of the committee.

Estee Lauder, maker of Clinique and Bobbi Brown cosmetics, said it and 13 other companies including Chanel and retailers including Federated and Neiman Marcus agreed to settle a price-fixing lawsuit.
In the settlement, the defendants agreed to provide $175 million in free products to some cosmetics users and as much as $24 million for the plaintiffs' legal costs, Estee Lauder said.

Estee Lauder's portion was $13.5 million, or 6 cents a share, the company said in a regulatory filing.

A source close to one defendant said the free give-away to consumers will take place at retail stores.

California's premier university system is considering charging rich students more tuition to offset deep funding cuts resulting from the state's $38 billion budget deficit.

The Board of Regents of the University of California examined a proposal for a surcharge on wealthy students at a meeting Thursday. The university would be the first in the country to target wealthy students with a surcharge.

The proposed fee would force undergraduate students with family incomes exceeding $90,000 to pay as much as $3,000 more to attend one of the university's nine campuses. It is expected to affect 58,194 of the university's 160,000 undergraduate students.

U.S. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner says he will schedule a congressional hearing to explore the application of antitrust laws to college sports, including the role of the Bowl Championship Series.

The Wisconsin Republican is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. A committee spokesman said Friday that Sensenbrenner will hold a hearing after the August congressional recess.

Sensenbrenner also has the support of U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the committee. In a letter to Sensenbrenner, Conyers said he wanted an investigation into the Bowl Championship Series, and "recent actions by the Atlantic Coast Conference inducing the University of Miami and Virginia Tech to depart the Big East.

Conyers said that, since the founding of the BCS in 1998, "the vast majority of the proceeds and power has been concentrated among 63 schools in six major conferences. Indeed, in the 2002-`03 season, only $5 million of a total BCS revenue of $109 million went to non-BCS colleges.

"This aggregation of power would appear to create a system that favors BCS schools in the six major conferences and largely eliminates the opportunity for other universities to participate in major post-season bowl games and the lucrative pay-out packages . . ."

Conyers added in his letter that the system has left some non-BCS schools with deficits and lower athletic budgets.

"There are also concerns that the disparities created in allocating sports revenues can have a significant, negative impact on Title IX opportunities in college athletics," he said.

"The freedoms that have accrued to mankind, the adventure that has unfolded based on the capacity that powered flight has provided is a very significant event, not just for aviators, but for our civilization, for the planet," Ford told the Dayton Daily News.

At Georgia State, Hodges said some conservative schoolmates have challenged his proposed move to Canada, saying he would be abandoning his homeland.

Trial lawyers plan to target school board members in Seattle who voted to extend a soda-machine contract with Coca-Cola Co. in elections this fall.

The board voted 4-3 Thursday night to approve a five-year, exclusive contract with the world's largest nonalcoholic beverage company.

However, it made changes to the deal that somewhat mollified the trial lawyers, who had threatened to sue for contributing to child obesity if the contract were extended.

While lawyers assess the likelihood of lucrative settlements in Seattle, others are researching suits and election campaigns against school boards using similar soft-drink contracts in Dallas, Houston and Boston, said George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf III, who is leading the obesity-litigation efforts similar to ones against tobacco companies.

The changes in the Seattle contract were a starting victory for trial lawyers, Mr. Banzhaf said.

"It's obvious we had a significant impact on the current contract, and it has now become a major issue for school board elections later this fall," said Mr. Banzhaf, who sent a legal notice earlier this month warning members of litigation.

Seattle lawyer Dwight Van Winkle said he may take up the case if he can find appropriate plaintiffs.

I have very strong reservations about this proposed transaction and the continued trend in concentration in the pork industry. I urge the Antitrust Division to carefully scrutinize this proposal, and consider thoroughly the projected impact on independent producers. This is an issue of extreme importance to a vital economic and social mainstay of my state of Iowa and indeed of our nation - the small, independent producer and family farmer. The Antitrust Division must give mergers and acquisitions in agri-business its foremost attention.

I look forward to hearing from you soon about this issue. So you are aware, I plan to speak with Attorney General Ashcroft about my concerns.

If too many burgers and fries have left your waistline super-sized, don't expect a sweet pay-off in court, senators said Thursday. A bill would prevent people from suing restaurants and food manufacturers for making them fat.

"I think it's important not to blame poor eating habits on someone else," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the sponsor of the bill.

The measure would block lawsuits related to obesity or weight gain, but not suits charging other kinds of injury or fraud. It is similar to one already introduced in the House.

The House held a hearing last month on the relatively new legal trend in which consumers are suing fast food chains like McDonald's and arguing that the food contributed to their obesity.

McConnell, the GOP whip, predicted an uphill battle getting the measure through the Senate.

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America opposes the bill, while the food industry has lobbied for it. Both are big campaign donors.

Goodbye "e-mail", the French government says, and hello "courriel" --the term that linguistically sensitive France is now using to refer to electronic mail in official documents.

The Culture Ministry has announced a ban on the use of "e-mail" in all government ministries, documents, publications or Web sites, the latest step to stem an incursion of English words into the French lexicon.

The Alliance was formed in 1995 by the vast majority of physicians and hospitals in five counties in northeastern Maine to negotiate payor contracts that contained "higher compensation" and more "advantageous" contract terms than the physicians and hospitals could obtain by dealing individually with payors. More than 85% of the physicians on staff at Alliance member hospitals are Alliance members, as are eleven of the sixteen hospitals in the five-county area. The physician and hospital members designated the Alliance as their negotiating agent to contract with payors, and authorized the Alliance to enter into, on their behalf, payor contracts.

Although the Alliance is a nonprofit corporation, and its member hospitals are tax-exempt organizations, a substantial majority of its physician members are for-profit entities. These for-profit physicians play a significant role in the governance of the Alliance and receive pecuniary benefits as a result of their participation. Participating physicians select 11 of the 22 members of the Alliance's Board of Directors and thus exercise substantial authority over the policies and actions of the Alliance. The participating physicians are therefore "members" of the Alliance within the meaning of Section 4 of the FTC Act, which grants the Commission jurisdiction over nonprofit organizations that carry on business for the profit of their members. Because the Alliance engages in substantial activities that confer pecuniary benefits on these for-profit members, its activities engaged in on behalf of the physician and hospital members fall within the Commission's jurisdiction.

Alliance physician and hospital members have refused to contract with payors on an individual basis. Instead, the Alliance's Board of Directors authorized Mr. Diggins to act as a principal negotiating agent with payors on behalf of the collective membership of the Alliance. Mr. Diggins was instrumental in forming the Alliance, coordinating the membership's collective bargaining activity, and negotiating payor contracts on behalf of the collective membership.

As guidance for Mr. Diggins, the Board, in conjunction with its Contracts Committee, compiled written "Contracting Guidelines and Parameters," setting forth price-related and other competitively significant terms that the Alliance required in order to contract with payors. Mr. Diggins reported the details of negotiations with payors to the Board and the Contracts Committee. Based on the recommendations of Mr. Diggins, and the Contracts Committee, the Board decided whether to accept or reject contracts with payors on behalf of the Alliance's physician and hospital members.

The Alliance and Mr. Diggins negotiated higher reimbursement for Alliance physician and hospital members, and more advantageous contract language, than the physicians and hospitals could have achieved through individual contracts with payors. Despite a written Alliance policy allowing members to contract independently of the Alliance, in fact the Alliance and Mr. Diggins encouraged the physician and hospital members to contract only through the Alliance, in order to maintain the Alliance's leverage over payors. Mr. Diggins provided Alliance physician and hospital members with a model letter for them to use to notify payors that they refused to negotiate individually, and that the Alliance would negotiate on their behalf. In response to payors' requests to contract directly with Alliance physician and hospital members, the members directed payors to the Alliance for contracting.

The Alliance's and Mr. Diggins' joint negotiation of fees and other competitively significant terms has not been reasonably related to any efficiency-enhancing integration. Although the Alliance has developed some clinical programs limited primarily to hospital members, none of the Alliance's clinical activities create any significant degree of interdependence among the physician or hospital participants, nor do the activities create sufficiently substantial potential efficiencies.

By orchestrating agreements among Alliance physician members, and hospital members, to deal only on collectively-determined terms, together with refusals to deal with payors that would not meet those terms, respondents have violated Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Mr. Speaker, my thrill on receiving this award was only a little diminished on being told that the first Congressional Gold Medal was awarded to George Washington for what Congress called ``his wise and spirited conduct in getting rid of the British out of Boston.''

On our way down here, Senator Frist was kind enough to show me the fireplace where in 1814 the British had burned the Congress library. I know this is kind of late, but sorry.

Actually, you know, my middle son was studying 18th century history and the American War of Independence and he said to me the other day, you know Lord North, Dad. He was the British Prime Minister who lost us America. So just think, however many mistakes you make, you will never make one that bad.

Both of Iowa's U.S. senators have asked federal antitrust officials to oppose the sale of Farmland Industries' pork processing division to rival Smithfield Foods.

"Today's (Tuesday's) announcement that Smithfield Foods plans to purchase Farmland Foods is bad news for the future of our nation's independent pork producers and for Iowa," said Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat. "It represents even more economic concentration and vertical integration in an already rapidly consolidating industry."

In a letter sent Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, asked the antitrust division of the Department of Justice "to carefully scrutinize this proposal and consider the projected impact on independent producers."

Bankrupt Farmland Industries Inc. announced Tuesday that it had agreed to sell its pork unit -- its remaining major business -- to rival Smithfield Foods for $363.5 million. That signaled the end of efforts by the nation's largest agricultural cooperative to rebuild.

With annual sales of about $1.8 billion, Kansas City-based Farmland Foods is the sixth-largest pork producer in the nation. Smithfield Foods is the country's largest pork producer and processor.

"Farmland is a significant buyer of hogs, especially in Iowa and the Midwest," said Harkin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee. "With this move, Smithfield is further strengthening its power and leverage over family pork producers."

Grassley, a member of the Judiciary Committee, has sought to have federal regulators more carefully review agribusiness mergers to ensure competition.

"If a Smithfield acquisition of Farmland is allowed, it could shut out the family farmer from fair and open markets. I believe it would have a serious, adverse impact on family farmers and independent producers in Iowa," Grassley said.

Smithfield shares closed Wednesday at $22.86, down 28 cents.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

HYPERPHRASE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
and HYPERPHRASE INC.,
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
02-C-647-C
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.


Pursuant to the modified scheduling order, the parties in this case had until June 25, 2003 to file summary judgment motions. Any electronic document may be e-filed until midnight on the due date. In a scandalous affront to this court’s deadlines, Microsoft did not file its summary judgment motion until 12:04:27 a.m. on June 26, 2003, with some supporting documents trickling in as late as 1:11:15 a.m. I don’t know this personally because I was home sleeping, but that’s what the court’s computer docketing system says, so I’ll accept it as true.

Microsoft’s insouciance so flustered Hyperphrase that nine of its attorneys, namely Mark A. Cameli, Lynn M. Stathas, Andrew W. Earlandson, Raymond P. Niro, Paul K. Vickrey, Raymond P. Niro, Jr., Robert Greenspoon, Matthew G. McAndrews, and William W. Flachsbart, promptly filed a motion to strike the summary judgment motion as untimely. Counsel used bolded italics to make their point, a clear sign of grievous iniquity by one’s foe. True, this court did enter an order on June 20, 2003 ordering the parties not to flyspeck each other, but how could such an order apply to a motion filed almost five minutes late? Microsoft’s temerity was nothing short of a frontal assault on the precept of punctuality so cherished by and vital to this court.

Wounded though this court may be by Microsoft’s four minute and twenty-seven second dereliction of duty, it will transcend the affront and forgive the tardiness. Indeed, to demonstrate the even-handedness of its magnanimity, the court will allow Hyperphrase on some future occasion in this case to e-file a motion four minutes and thirty seconds late, with supporting documents to follow up seventy-two minutes later.

Having spent more than that amount of time on Hyperphrase’s motion, it is now time to move on to the other Gordian problems confronting this court. Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied.

Entered this 1st day of July, 2003.

BY THE COURT:

STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

The U.S. Postal Service should be overhauled to be more businesslike, and needs to close some facilities and accelerate outsourcing to the private sector, a presidential commission said on Wednesday.

"We believe that the only way this business is going to survive and prosper is if it learns from the commercial business world," said Harry Pearce, a panel co-chairman and chairman of Hughes Electronics Corp., as he released a summary of the group's findings.

The commission was appointed by President Bush last year to examine how the 228-year-old service can further modernize as it faces challenges from electronic mail and package delivery companies.

The bipartisan commission, which includes senior business executives, rejected options for privatization and concluded the postal service should retain its monopoly over collecting and distributing mail to 140 million homes and businesses.

But it said the postal business model, which it said was steeped in bureaucracy and patronage, must become more efficient in everything from setting rates to selling stamps.

The postal service is a company overseen by government that receives federal benefits unavailable to corporate America. For example, it does not pay taxes. The service earned $224 million in the third quarter and is on track to post a profit in 2003. Cost cutting has offset stagnant mail volume.

The commission proposed that the board of governors be replaced by an 11-member corporate-style board of directors.

The panel also sought oversight changes and unprecedented flexibility for management to set postal rates and quickly respond to market changes without political interference.

When a procedural requirement that is general in nature prevents funding for a basic, substantive right, the procedure must yield. Here, the application of the general procedural requirement for a two-thirds majority has prevented the Legislature as a body from performing its obligation to give life to the specific substantive educational rights enunciated in our Constitution.

Prominent US televangelist Pat Robertson launched a "prayer offensive" against the Supreme Court, urging his supporters to pray for the removal of three sitting justices.

"Would you join with me and many others in crying out to our Lord to change the Court?" Robertson asked viewers of his Christian Broadcasting Network.

Robertson and other prominent members of the religious right have condemned the recent Supreme Court ruling, decriminalising gay sex between consenting adults.

They argue that the decision opens the door to bigamy, legalized prostitution, and even incest.

"No culture has ever endured which has turned openly to homosexuality," said Robertson, who described the nine-member Supreme Court as a "non-elected oligarchy" capable of changing the moral fabric of the nation.

But rather than calling for the abolition of the court, Robertson urged his viewers to pray for the retirement of three judges and their replacement by three conservative justices.

With a few years of experience, an auto mechanic at a dealership can earn $80,000 a year. But high schools are eliminating auto shop classes. The equipment is costly, industrial tech (shop) teachers are hard to find and students' schedules are filled with college-prep classes. Students assume the only way to make a living is to go to college, but many don't have the motivation or the academic skills to earn a college degree. Only about half of students who enroll in college ever earn a degree; most of those who graduate won't be earning $80,000 a year.

Community colleges are picking up the slack. But students often enter with no hands-on skills: They don't know how to change the oil, or how big a 13 mm wrench is. And many can't read well enough to understand the manual or use the diagnostic data on the computer screen. Qualifying for a skilled trade is more demanding than qualifying for most colleges.

Many slacker students, bored and frustrated by college-prep courses, would work much harder on reading and math if they knew what they had to do to get an $80,000-a-year job. But the snobbery of the times tells students they have to sit in a classroom for 16 years -- with or without learning anything -- to earn a living.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Thousands of models can launch a unified attack on management agencies they say conspired to cheat them by charging inflated commission fees and expenses, a U.S. judge ruled on Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer granted class action status to a complaint against defendants including Elite Model Management and Ford Models Inc. The class is expected to be made up of thousands of models.

The suit, filed in Manhattan federal court, alleges the agencies fixed models' commission rates at 20 percent, twice the 10 percent allowed by state law for employment agencies. The models alleged that the defendants conspired to evade state pricing regulations by calling themselves model management companies.

Following a public comment period, the Commission has approved the issuance of two final consent orders in the matters concerning Anesthesia Service Medical Group, Inc. and Grossmont Anesthesia Medical Group, Inc., as well as a letter to the commenter of record. The Commission vote to approve the final consent orders and letter was 5-0.

Thankfully, common sense and mainstream values prevailed in the Supreme Court.

On issues of enormous social importance - most notably decriminalizing the lives of millions of gay Americans and protecting affirmative action in higher education - the court recognized that our nation's commitment to fundamental equality for all Americans cannot, and will not, be turned back.

In doing so, the court confirmed how plainly out of touch social conservatives are with the way most Americans lead their lives. With millions of dollars to shape public perception and litigate relentlessly, a small band of conservative activists have for too long misled the public and the media into believing they represent a much larger constituency than they actually do.

Consider the court's sweeping opinion striking down Texas' discriminatory sodomy law. Most Americans feel the government should not criminalize consensual sex (a May Gallup poll put the number at 60 percent). The last 20 years in particular have seen a steady expansion of social acceptance of homosexuality, as state sodomy laws have fallen like flies and gays have assumed leadership positions nationally. And July 2, Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, adopted policies forbidding discrimination against gay employees.

Yet social conservatives, never reluctant to impose their morality on others, were apoplectic after the decision. Led by Justice Antonin Scalia's spiteful dissent, they predicted the swift legalization of bigamy, prostitution and incest (and most bizarrely, the spread of "man on dog" relationships, as expressed by Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania three months ago).

The challenge to the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies was perhaps an even more galling example of conservative chutzpah.

The plaintiffs, represented by a small organization called the Center for Individual Rights and backed by an echo chamber of think tank activists, convinced many that mainstream Americans opposed affirmative action. A quick glance at the list of supporters of Michigan's policies puts the lie to that misguided notion.

Dozens of Fortune 500 corporations, virtually all prestigious private and public universities, half the states, countless professional organizations and that bastion of liberal activism, the U.S. military, filed briefs expressing their support for diversity in higher education. Opinion polls reveal a solid majority support "special preferences" for qualified individuals, according to a Pew Charitable Trusts survey in March.

So who, aside from President Bush, supported the plaintiffs? Florida and a handful of organizations such as the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism, an outfit that might have a prickly time at its next board meeting defending its opposition to the Fortune 500.

Lesser-publicized decisions also demonstrated the court's unwillingness to capitulate to the extreme right wing of the conservative movement.

In the face of widespread concern over unfairness in the administration of the death penalty, the court strengthened the requirement that capital defendants receive an effective legal defense. And in upholding the applicability of the Family and Medical Leave Act to state employees, the court recognized that women have long suffered workplace discrimination when deciding between children and a career.

As expected, the right is not going gently into that good night. The New York Times reported that conservative activists reacted with "white-hot fury" to the court's decisions and have pledged to continue their legal assault.

But it is difficult to imagine how they can expect to win given that they failed with this deeply conservative court, which has redefined the standard for judicial activism and results-oriented decision-making (think Bush vs. Gore).

Singed by the bitter disappointment of finally reaching the endgame in their lengthy quest to reverse gains for racial minorities and gays, and then badly losing, these activists are now calling for the heads of Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy, who had the temerity to dissent from the reactionary playbook of the conservative right.

The vast majority of Americans are not consumed by the private desires of consenting adults and the mechanics of university admissions. It is time conservative activists realize the game is up. It is also time the rest of us realize that, despite the loud voices and aggressive tactics of those who wish to stop progress in its tracks, mainstream American values are our values.

Over at the FTC, meanwhile, the agency has been flexing its antitrust muscles to prevent mergers in even the most obscurely defined markets, such as "superpremium ice cream," "jarred pickles," and "food service glassware."

Moreover, if one adopted the Movant's interpretation of the Tunney Act, it would compromise the usefulness of the consent decree as a viable settlement option in other antitrust contexts. As the United States explained in its Response to Public Comments, it is customary in other Tunney Act proceedings that involve mergers to permit the defendants to merge after the complaint and proposed final judgment are filed, subject to the defendants' obligations under the proposed final judgment to take steps to divest certain specified assets. In these mergers, the defendants are generally allowed to complete the merger prior to the close of the sixty-day comment period and entry of the final judgment by the court.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. antitrust enforcers said on Friday they had settled antitrust charges against a group of doctors in St. Louis whom they claimed had inflated prices by bargaining collectively with insurers.

The Federal Trade Commission said the 1,500-member Washington University Physician Network agreed to stop negotiating fees with insurers and preferred provider organizations on behalf of members, a practice that violates antitrust laws.

"This group of St. Louis-area physicians engaged in overt price-fixing," said Joe Simons, director of the FTC's competition bureau. "Its conduct was plainly anticompetitive and harmful to consumers, by forcing up prices in the area."

The settlement also bars the doctors from "facilitating exchanges of information among physicians concerning whether, or on what terms, to contract with (an insurer)."

The St. Louis case marks the 10th time during the last 15 months that the commission has charged doctors groups with conspiring to raise fees in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) plans to close its antitrust investigation of Vista Health, the joint venture of two Waukegan hospitals, according to Vista attorney Laura Martin.

The FTC began its inquiry after the venture was accused by insurers three years ago of violating antitrust law by seeking substantial rates hikes before fully consolidating the hospitals' operations. The FTC is now acknowledging, Ms. Martin says, that Provena St. Therese Medical Center, one of the hospitals, would have raised rates with or without a merger and that the increases were not as high as those of other merged hospitals under investigation. The other hospital in the venture is Victory Memorial Hospital.

The Federal Trade Commission today issued an administrative complaint against California Pacific Medical Group, Inc., doing business as Brown & Toland, a San Francisco, California physicians' organization, for allegedly fixing the prices and terms under which its doctors would contract with payors to provide services for Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) enrollees. In filing the complaint, the FTC is seeking to prohibit Brown & Toland from unlawfully negotiating PPO contracts with health plans on behalf of its member physicians and to nullify the allegedly anticompetitive existing contracts the group has already negotiated with health plans. Brown & Toland also has organized a network of physicians to contract with Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), but the FTC's complaint focuses solely on allegations of price-fixing in connection with PPO contracts.

"The FTC's complaint charges Brown & Toland with orchestrating naked price fixing among its physician members to the detriment of San Francisco consumers," said Joe Simons, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. "While, under certain circumstances, collective price negotiation may be necessary to achieve actual clinical or financial integration among providers, which in turn can benefit consumers, in this case Brown & Toland did not achieve such integration. Simply put, Brown & Toland fixed prices without providing any offsetting consumer benefit, a classic violation of the antitrust laws and the Federal Trade Commission Act."

Brown & Toland is a for-profit multi-specialty independent physicians' association (IPA) with more than 1,500 members providing services in San Francisco. Historically, it has provided physician services to HMO members under capitated agreements with health plans, under which the plans pay a set rate each month for each enrollee for certain services provided by the group's doctors. In 2001, with a subset of its physician members, Brown & Toland formed a PPO network and began negotiating fee-for-service reimbursement rates on behalf of its PPO network members.

Experts: U.S. Needs Int'l Image Makeover

The United States is less vulnerable to terrorism today because of heightened vigilance but must improve its international relations in order to starve terrorist groups of new recruits, experts said Wednesday.

Scholars on terrorism and al-Qaida told the independent commission studying the Sept. 11 attacks that the United States badly needs an image makeover in the eyes of the world.

"Although we are winning the war against the organization called al-Qaida, we seem to be losing the cultural war," said Mamoun Fandy, senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace.

Fandy said leaders of other countries, particularly in the Middle East, should be expected to express public gratitude for U.S. help. "Somehow we tolerate Arab leaders telling us something in private rooms and then dealing with their public the way they want to," he said.

Dennis Ross, a peace envoy to the Middle East under former President Clinton (news - web sites), said the United States' choice of friends in the region contributed to the anger and resentment that helped al-Qaida.

"We are resented in no small part because we are seen as using democracy as a tool or weapon against those we don't like, but never against those we do like," said Ross, now director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "We are seen as mouthing the words of democracy but then supporting regimes seen as repressive." He offered Saudi Arabia as one example.

Three leading Iranian student activists were arrested minutes after holding a press conference to blast the Islamic regime for banning events marking the fourth anniversary of bloody student clashes with security forces.

The arrests were made after activists from the Office to Consolidate Unity (OCU) -- a pro-reform student umbrella group -- said President Mohammad Khatami had failed in his drive for reforms and alleged the hardline-controlled judiciary was trying to prevent freedom of thought.

"Since we believe that Khatami's reforms have come to an end, we wanted to stage a sit-in opposite the UN," the OCU's Reza Ameri-Nassab said moments before he was arrested, adding the gathering was postponed on the advice of supportive MPs.

"But it is not forgotten... our demands are for the immediate release of our eight fellow students from the OCU (arrested during unrest last month) as well as those spelled out in our open letter to Kofi Annan (news - web sites)," he said.

On Tuesday, the OCU wrote to the UN secretary general, denouncing what it said was a "dark chapter" in Iran's history and a "political and social apartheid" that it argued deserved UN investigation.

Ameri-Nassab also said his group had no confidence in Iran's judiciary -- controlled by religious hardliners -- because the institution "is trying to eradicate all sources of independent thought."

Article 26 [Freedom of Association]
The formation of parties, societies, political or professional associations, as well as religious societies, whether Islamic or pertaining to one of the recognized religious minorities, is permitted provided they do not violate the principles of independence, freedom, national unity, the criteria of Islam, or the basis of the Islamic Republic. No one may be prevented from participating in the aforementioned groups, or be compelled to participate in them.

Article 27 [Freedom of Assembly]
Public gatherings and marches may be freely held, provided arms are not carried and that they are not detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam.

Remember that antitrust lawsuit?

The one in which the federal government accused the owners of News Times L.A. and the L.A. Weekly of violating antitrust laws by conspiring to divide up markets in L.A. and Cleveland? At last look, prosecutors had declared victory, while the companies admitted no guilt but paid fines. They also submitted to conditions, as part of a settlement, that paved the way for more competition in these two media markets.

In short, the feds think the case is over. So do the newspapers.

But it’s not over for S.M. “Skip” Oliva of Citizens for Voluntary Trade, a Washington, D.C.–based libertarian group. Oliva wants to reopen the case based on his claim that the judge denied adequate time for public comment. Ostensibly, Oliva is taking the side of the newspapers. His group opposes antitrust laws as an abridgment of citizens’ freedom to conduct commerce, and even as a violation of constitutional rights.

In the deal in question, NT Media agreed to shut down New Times L.A., leaving L.A. Weekly as the sole citywide alternative weekly in L.A., while Village Voice Media (the Weekly’s parent) agreed to close its publication in Cleveland, leaving that market to NT’s Cleveland Scene. New Times netted $9 million in the transactions.

When contacted about Oliva’s motion to intervene, one Voice Media executive rolled her eyes and said she expected nothing to come of it, but she quickly added that her reaction was strictly off the record.

Sharman Networks made the antitrust claims in January as part of its defense of a copyright infringement suit filed by the entertainment firms.

Sharman argued that music labels and studios conspired to keep authorized and copy-protected versions of their songs and movies off Kazaa. It essentially blamed piracy on the entertainment companies, saying they failed to work with Sharman to create a legal alternative.

U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson dismissed Sharman's claims, which many copyright lawyers had considered a stretch.

In Thursday's ruling, Wilson said that even if the allegations were true, Sharman would not be entitled to damages because it distributes file-sharing software and not online entertainment.

"Sharman Networks was grasping at straws to distract the court from their own improper behavior," said Matthew Oppenheim of the Recording Industry Association of America. "We are pleased that the court recognized what we have said all along--that these claims lacked any merit."

Plano-based Texas Commercial Energy has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against several electric companies, including a TXU affiliate, claiming that they violated federal and state law by illegally manipulating the Texas electric market and fraudulently inflating prices.

The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court in the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, where TCE filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on March 6. TCE is seeking damages in excess of $535 million.

"Texas Commercial Energy is a victim of market power abuses in an energy marketplace that is mandated by Senate Bill 7 to be a level playing field for all participants," said Mike Shirley, president of TCE.

The defendants named in the lawsuit are all participants in the Texas electric market and include affiliates of TXU, Reliant, American Electric Power and Mirant.

Chiron Corp. Monday said it settled antitrust complaints by European blood banks over the pricing of its hepatitis and HIV tests.

Chiron, the Emeryville-based biotechnology company, said the Commission of the European Communities had accepted a joint settlement proposal made by Chiron and its European licensee, F. Hoffmann-La Roche.

In October 2001, the German Red Cross Donation Service and Working Society of Physicians filed a complaint with the commission alleging that Roche's prices for its blood-screening kits were unreasonable and should be prohibited.

The complaint was eventually joined by groups from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Finland and Luxembourg.

Chiron said it resolved the complaints by modifying licensing agreements that allow Hoffman-La Roche to use Chiron's technology in hepatitis C and HIV-1 blood-testing kits.

Lawyers for the state told the judge in the antitrust case that they were investigating other complaints that Microsoft might have violated the settlement. Microsoft said it was complying fully with the settlement.

In a court filing made public Monday, Massachusetts said that none of the allegations had been resolved and it would "move forward on an enforcement path should its investigations identify provable violations."

Massachusetts is the only state that has not settled its antitrust claims against the software giant. Its lawyers did not specify which computer maker might have suffered retaliation for promoting Linux software. Companies promoting Linux in varying ways have included IBM, Dell Computer Corp. and Sony Corp.

Each of the allegations against Microsoft was based on a complaint or investigative tip, state lawyers wrote.

Microsoft denied it was violating the agreement.

"We are complying fully with all terms of the decree and are working with the appropriate authorities to ensure that this consent decree is implemented," spokesman Jim Desler said.

Massachusetts has argued previously that the government's antitrust settlement was profoundly flawed. It has asked a federal appeals court to instruct the trial judge to impose tougher sanctions than those included in the settlement the judge approved.

The state also complained that its investigation of Microsoft has been hampered by the Justice Department (news - web sites) and some other states enforcing agreements that preclude any of the states from cooperating with Massachusetts.

"The exclusion of Massachusetts has been effective and complete," the state said.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

Massachusetts also told U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that it will establish a Web site to solicit complaints about Microsoft's behavior, set up a telephone hot line for complaints, contact technology industry groups and review news coverage of Microsoft to look for leads.

Contrary to The Washington Times position that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Nike commercial-free speech case was a positive decision ("Court gets it right on Nike," Editorial, yesterday), the court's decision was a setback for free speech. In an amicus brief to the court, my organization argued that allowing California anti-globalization activist Marc Kasky's lawsuit against Nike to proceed was a violation of the right of free speech of Nike's shareholders and employees.

Yet, rather than address Mr. Kasky's challenge to free speech directly, the court decided to send the Nike case back to California for trial, even as it admitted that a ruling against Nike would not likely be sustained on appeal. In a victory for anti-corporate crusaders, the court's decision to allow a trial means that at least for now, the right of a corporation to speak in its economic interest is in peril. Yet, just like political speech, which the court protects, economic speech is equally essential to the success of an individual's life. The Constitution should not be interpreted to uphold the sanctity of an individual's right to speak on issues affecting his political interests while simultaneously damning him when he speaks in order to advance his trade.

Until the Supreme Court recognizes the relationship between economic motives, individual rights and the Constitution's protection of all non-fraudulent and non-defamatory speech, whether private or commercial, the threat to free speech remains active. The court had an opportunity to set the record straight. It failed. Rather than be praised for its decision in the Nike case, the court ought to be condemned.

An antitrust lawsuit alleging price-fixing among four Maine blueberry processors could go to court as soon as October.

The attorney for blueberry grower Nathan Pease of Union has put legal notices in the state's largest newspapers notifying Maine's 500-plus blueberry growers they have until July 23 to exclude themselves from the class-action lawsuit.

Attorney Bill Robitzek of Lewiston said he expects the lawsuit -- which was originally filed three years ago -- to go to trial in Knox County Superior Court in Rockland this fall, possibly in late October or November.

The lawsuit accuses the processors of conspiring to set low field prices for the state's blueberry crop from 1996 through 1999.

The processors in the lawsuit are Jasper Wyman and Son, Cherryfield Foods, Merrill Blueberry Farms and Allen's Blueberry Freezer. They have denied the allegations.

Microsoft has yet to comply with a key provision of its government antitrust settlement, according to a progress report filed yesterday with the judge overseeing the landmark case.

A court order may be necessary "to account for Microsoft's delayed implementation," state and federal prosecutors said.

A Microsoft spokesman said the company is being cooperative and "working through the process."

But the company and government attorneys are haggling over how much Microsoft can charge for technology the company is required to share with competitors.

The report is the first public disclosure of the company's compliance with the November settlement, which largely ended the long-running case.

Government attorneys have already forced Microsoft to be more open when sharing technology.

Now they are trying to get Microsoft to lower the fees it charges to use Windows communication protocols.