CK-K's memorandum opinion is here.

Of particular interest in the legislative history is the testimony of Judge J. Skelly Wright, who raised the "El Paso Pipeline litigation" as an "example" of a case where the "great influence and economic power" wielded by an antitrust violator was used to exert "significant pressure" on the government, and the government "succumbed to [the] pressure." Senate Hearings, 93rd Cong. at 147 (statement of Judge J. Skelly Wright); 119 Cong. Rec. at 24598 ("In the El Paso case\ufffdperhaps the leading atrocity in the whole litany of antitrust suits\ufffdafter 17 years of inconclusive litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court, in language which some have described as unique for that body, accused the Antitrust Division of 'knuckling under' to the El Paso Natural Gas Corp."). In referencing the El Paso Pipeline litigation, Judge Wright sought to emphasize the usefulness of the legislation pending before the subcommittee.6

[6]The El Paso Pipeline litigation caused a scandal when, following a remand from the Supreme Court with clear instructions to "provide for 'divestiture without delay,'" the parties proposed a settlement in the form of a consent decree with "no divestiture in any meaningful sense." Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v . El Paso Natural Gas Co., 386 U.S. 129, 131 (1967).

Interesting that she should pick this example.

Post #44,339 by Another Scott 7/3/02 10:41:32 AM Reply	CK-K's memorandum opinion is here. [link\|http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/98-1232ci.pdf\|PDF]. It's 36 pages. I haven't read it carefully, but notice that she does often say in footnotes that "Microsoft's memorandum ... is misleading...". At first blush, she seems to be considering things carefully. Note that it's just a preliminary opinion and not an Order (last paragraph). IANAL, but it seems that it's just a formality to indicate that the Tunney Act does apply, so that she can rule on the case eventually. Cheers, Scott.
Post #44,347 by drewk 7/3/02 11:16:58 AM Reply	I like her citation Of particular interest in the legislative history is the testimony of Judge J. Skelly Wright, who raised the "El Paso Pipeline litigation" as an "example" of a case where the "great influence and economic power" wielded by an antitrust violator was used to exert "significant pressure" on the government, and the government "succumbed to [the] pressure." Senate Hearings, 93rd Cong. at 147 (statement of Judge J. Skelly Wright); 119 Cong. Rec. at 24598 ("In the El Paso case\ufffdperhaps the leading atrocity in the whole litany of antitrust suits\ufffdafter 17 years of inconclusive litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court, in language which some have described as unique for that body, accused the Antitrust Division of 'knuckling under' to the El Paso Natural Gas Corp."). In referencing the El Paso Pipeline litigation, Judge Wright sought to emphasize the usefulness of the legislation pending before the subcommittee.6 [6]The El Paso Pipeline litigation caused a scandal when, following a remand from the Supreme Court with clear instructions to "provide for 'divestiture without delay,'" the parties proposed a settlement in the form of a consent decree with "no divestiture in any meaningful sense." Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v . El Paso Natural Gas Co., 386 U.S. 129, 131 (1967). Interesting that she should pick this example. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #44,438 by static 7/3/02 11:10:49 PM Reply	Most interesting... "Ah. One of the difficult questions."

Welcome to IWETHEY!