The state Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction of an Albuquerque shop owner who offered free nipple piercing if customers underwent the procedure in the store's window.

In 2002, Renee Sachs was convicted of violating Albuquerque's ordinance banning nudity in a public place. She received a 90-day deferred sentence.

In a 3-0 ruling Tuesday, the Appeals Court also upheld the constitutionality of the city's public nudity ban.

Sachs' attorney, Jeffrey Dempsey of Albuquerque, said his client would continue with her legal challenge by asking the court to rehear the case or petition the state Supreme Court to review the ruling.

Sachs ran an advertisement two years ago promoting the free nipple piercing. The first customer to undergo the procedure in the shop's window was a man and the second was a woman.

When police arrived at the tattoo and body piercing shop, a woman was sitting in the window exposing her breasts as she had her nipples pierced. Several people on the sidewalk were watching.

Sachs was convicted of violating the city's ordinance that bans nudity in public and prohibits store owners from allowing people to be nude in a public place of business.

The Appeals Court ruled that the ordinance did not violate the Equal Rights Amendment of the New Mexico Constitution or the state's Human Rights Act, which prohibits gender-based discrimination.

In her appeal, Sachs contended that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it discriminated against women by prohibiting the public exposure of a female breast but not a male breast. She also argued that the ordinance forced her to offer body piercing services in a way that discriminated on the basis of sex.

The court disagreed.

"The city ordinance does not prohibit public nudity of women while allowing public nudity by men," the court said in an opinion written by Judge Michael Vigil. "It recognizes that females and males have different anatomies, so the objective is accomplished in a nondiscriminatory manner." [AP]

The U.S. Senate majority leader on Wednesday attacked European regulators' decision to impose stiff antitrust sanctions on Microsoft Corp. and expressed fears of a transatlantic trade war.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, said the requirement that Microsoft change the way it designs and sells its Windows operating system was "preposterous."

"The EC has today pursued a different enforcement approach by imposing a 'code removal' remedy to resolve its media player concerns. The U.S. experience tells us that the best antitrust remedies eliminate impediments to the healthy functioning of competitive markets without hindering successful competitors or imposing burdens on third parties, which may result from the EC's remedy. A requirement of 'code removal' was not at any time -- including during the period when the U.S. was seeking a breakup of Microsoft prior to the rejection of that remedy by the court of appeals -- part of the United States' proposed remedy.

"Imposing antitrust liability on the basis of product enhancements and imposing 'code removal' remedies may produce unintended consequences. Sound antitrust policy must avoid chilling innovation and competition even by 'dominant' companies. A contrary approach risks protecting competitors, not competition, in ways that may ultimately harm innovation and the consumers that benefit from it. It is significant that the U.S. district court considered and rejected a similar remedy in the U.S. litigation.

A California atheist told the Supreme Court Wednesday that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional and offensive to people who don't believe there is a God.

Michael Newdow, who challenged the Pledge of Allegiance on behalf of his daughter, said the court has no choice but to keep it out of public schools.

"It's indoctrinating children," he said. "The government is supposed to stay out of religion."

But some justices said they were not sure if the words were intended to unite the country, or express religion.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist noted that Congress unanimously added the words "under God" in the pledge in 1954.

"That doesn't sound divisive," he said.

"That's only because no atheists can be elected to office," Newdow responded.

Some in the audience erupted in applause in the courtroom, and were threatened with expulsion by the chief justice.

The European Union declared Microsoft Corp. guilty of abusing its "near monopoly" with Windows to foil competitors in other markets and hit the software giant with a record fine of $613 million Wednesday.

The EU's antitrust authority said that "because the illegal behavior is still ongoing," it was also demanding changes in the way Microsoft operates in Europe with the aim of improving competition globally. The EU edict goes well beyond the 2001 U.S. antitrust settlement.

It gave Microsoft 90 days to offer European computer manufacturers a version of Windows without the company's digital media player, which lets computer users watch video and listen to music and is expected to be an important market as multimedia content becomes even more pervasive in coming years.

The panel also chastised Microsoft for trying to "shut competitors out of the market" in software for office servers, by hoarding code that would help competing programs work smoothly with Windows computers. Microsoft now has 120 days to provide rivals in the server market with such code.

EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti said the ruling was "proportionate" and "balanced," and said "dominant companies have a special responsibility to ensure that the way they do business doesn't prevent competition."

"We are simply ensuring that anyone who develops new software has a fair opportunity to compete in the marketplace," he told a news conference. [AP]

"Dominant companies have a special responsibility to ensure that the way they do business doesn't prevent competition on the merits and does not harm consumers and innovation " said European Competition Commissioner Mario Monti.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon on Monday reintroduced a bill requiring the Federal Trade Commission to act on what he called anti-competitive industry pricing policies.

Israel will strike at more Hamas leaders, the Israeli defense minister said Tuesday, a day after the founder of the Islamic militant group, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, was assassinated in a missile attack.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and his security chiefs decided to try to kill the entire Hamas leadership, without waiting for another terror attack, security sources said Tuesday. . .

. . . Hamas, founded by Yassin in 1987, wants to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic state. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Monday that Hamas killed 377 Israelis and wounded more than 2,000 in hundreds of attacks.

Mofaz said Tuesday that other Hamas leaders would be targeted. "If we will continue, in a determined way, with our strikes against Hamas and other terror groups, with the means I outlined, including action against those leaders, we will bring more security to Israeli citizens," he said.

Are Palestinians weeds? It would seem many people think they are. Following Israel's assassination early yesterday morning of Ahmed Yassin, spiritual leader of Hamas,the gist of international reaction was that the strike would bring new converts to the Islamist cause and incite a fresh wave of terrorist violence against Israel. In other words, Palestinians are weeds: Mowing them down, as it were, only has the effect of making them grow back stronger and faster.

There are moments (Monday morning was one of them) when I find myself tempted by the metaphor. As I write, my TV screen is filled with images of Palestinian mourners thronging the streets of Gaza, praising Yassin as a martyr and vowing deadly vengeance. This looks like the reaction of an emboldened people, not a frightened one. So what's the sense, in purely utilitarian terms, of further Israeli attacks? Alternatively, what's the sense of showing any restraint at all? If the weed metaphor is right, either Israel should sue for peace on whatever terms the Palestinians extend or it should resort to extreme measures like population transfer. Anything else just fruitlessly prolongs a cycle of violence.

But of course Palestinians aren't weeds. They're human. They think in terms of costs and benefits, they calculate the odds, they respond more or less rationally to incentives and disincentives. And what makes us afraid can also make them afraid.

This is a trite observation, but it's one Palestinians would rather have us forget. Over 42 months of conflict, their strategy has been to persuade Israelis that they, the Palestinians, are made of different stuff. Why else the suicide bombers? Not because of their proven capacity to kill civilians in greater numbers than any other weapon currently in the Palestinian arsenal. That's only a second-order effect. The deep logic of suicide bombing lies in the act of suicide itself. People who will readily die for their cause are, by definition, beyond deterrence. By showing that Israel's tanks and fighter jets are just so much scrap metal in the face of the Palestinians' superhuman determination, they aim to disarm Israel itself.

How does one respond to such a logic? It helps not to be fooled by it.

A divided Nebraska Supreme Court revived a class-action lawsuit Friday alleging that Microsoft Corp. violated the state's consumer-protection laws by engaging in monopolistic behavior.

The high court ruled 4-3 in favor of two Nebraskans who sued the software giant in 2001. They allege that Microsoft used its monopoly in computer operating systems to overcharge people for its widely used Windows 98 software.

The lawsuit is one of scores nationwide stemming from the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust action against Microsoft, which the company has settled. . .

. . . Last year, Microsoft agreed to settle class-action antitrust lawsuits brought by customers in five states and the District of Columbia by issuing vouchers worth $200 million.

In all, Microsoft has settled similar lawsuits in at least nine states and Washington, D.C., for a total of $1.55 billion.

U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co., the nation's largest maker of smokeless tobacco, has agreed to pay $200 million and forfeit its cigar business to settle an antitrust lawsuit brought by rival Swedish Match North America.

Separately, the subsidiary of UST Inc. also said it had resolved a lawsuit brought by customers who said they were overcharged. The company said it has taken a $40 million charge to fulfill the terms of the agreement, which include awarding coupons for reduced-priced products and paying legal fees.

"We concluded that it was in the best interest of our shareholders to reduce the uncertainty and risk we face by having these lawsuits pending in the courts and are pleased that we can move forward," UST chairman and chief executive Vincent A. Gierer Jr. said in a statement.

The agreement with Swedish Match settles a two-year-old federal lawsuit filed in Owensboro, Ky., alleging that U.S. Smokeless Tobacco, which makes the Skoal and Copenhagen brands, used illegal tactics to suppress competition, raise prices and stifle innovation. Swedish Match makes Timber Wolf snuff among other brands.

In its suit, Swedish Match accused U.S. Smokeless of destroying Swedish Match retail racks, defacing or removing advertising, supplying misleading data to retailers and entering exclusive agreements to keep Swedish Match products out of areas. . .

. . . UST, which is based in Greenwich, Conn., has faced antitrust allegations before.

In 2000, a federal jury in Kentucky ordered UST to pay Conwood Co. $350 million in an antitrust case. Federal antitrust provisions tripled damages in the case, meaning a total award of $1.05 billion.

For years, liberal elites have blamed Wal-Mart for emptying historic downtowns, steamrolling competitors and not paying well enough. Today, these old bromides are being trotted out yet again.

Ketchup queen Teresa Heinz Kerry recently claimed that Wal-Mart "destroys communities." Fact is, Wal-Mart began in 1962 and exploded in the 1980s. Historic downtowns began fading much earlier, with the rise of cars in the 1920s and shopping centers in the 1950s.

Long before Wal-Mart arrived, mom-and-pop businesses were losing ground to mass merchandisers because consumers preferred larger selections and lower prices. Wal-Mart didn't invent mass retailing, it perfected it.

Liberal elites also love to whine about Wal-Mart's wages. This is, really, none of their business.

Wal-Mart employs 1.2 million Americans. Many move up, many move on, but all joined the company voluntarily. In a market system, wages are set by supply and demand, not CBS News or The New Yorker.