Category Archives: Law: Everything Else

Why Aren’t Hardware Limits on Netbooks an Anti-Trust Violation?

Posted on May 11, 2009 by Michael Froomkin

Continuing on today's theme of asking dumb questions about areas of law I don't know enough about, here's a question about anti-trust law, spurred by the news that Administration Plans to Strengthen Antitrust Rules.

Why isn't this, which no one even attempts to hide, an anti-trust violation???

Basically, Microsoft will only allow netbook makers to load XP on machines that are a touch on the slow side, and don't have quite enough RAM — and have been crippled to prevent users from increasing it.

PC makers must limit screen size to 14.1 in. and hard-drive capacity to 160GB. Ultralow-cost PCs with touch screens will also be eligible. Earlier terms set in April did not allow touch screens at all and limited screen sizes to 10.2 in. and hard-drive capacity to 80GB. The processors are still limited to a single-core chip running at no more than 1 GHz, with memory limited to 1GB of RAM.

Why isn't this illegal? Don't the anti-trust laws prevent a software maker with a dominant position from dictating hardware to pc makers in order to protect the market share of a different product?

Then again, it may be wrong to blame Microsoft for what may actually be a case of collusion with the hardware people:

The goal of the program is apparently to limit the hardware capabilities of such PCs so that they don't eat into the market for mainstream PCs running Windows Vista, something both Microsoft and PC vendors would want to avoid.

That sure sounds like the sort of collusion I thought the anti-trust laws prevented. Everyone is being so open about this, I have to assume that there's a reason why it's legal. I'm just wondering what it could be.

Posted in Law: Everything Else | 8 Comments

Legal Background to AIG Bonuses

Posted on March 24, 2009 by Michael Froomkin

There's a very interesting contrast between this news story, Cuomo Says Some A.I.G. Bonuses Will Be Repaid and the legal opinion AIG got on March 16, 2009 regarding its obligation to pay the bonuses (source: the American Lawyer).

This letter is going to be the fodder for a lot of law courses. The question it answers is artfully narrow; what it leaves out, and why it leaves it out, are fascinating issues that will engender many discussions in Professional Responsibility and Corporate Law.

Posted in Law: Everything Else | 1 Comment

Obama DoJ May Revive Anti-Trust Enforcement

Posted on March 18, 2009 by Michael Froomkin

I found this blog posting by Jamie Love to be very interesting — Knowledge Ecology Notes » Meeting at DOJ on the Ticketmaster /Live Nation merger — especially if its optimism turns out to be justified.

There were several interesting things that came out during the 90 minute meeting. One was that the DOJ clearly understood that the opposition to the merger would not be satisfied with a few divestitures, and this was really an up or down decision for the merger as a whole.

One early question put to us was, would consumers be better off with two vertically integrated companies, rather than one (a not too hypothetical case of TM and LN vertically integrating both promoting and ticket sales). This was not a difficult question for anyone.

My own take was the DOJ is willing to stop the merger, and is devoting resources to build a case against the merger.

This isn't anywhere near the most important merger in history, but could be a major sign of things to come.

Posted in Law: Everything Else | 8 Comments

Updates on Sex/Race Bias Suit Against UF Law

Posted on February 10, 2009 by Michael Froomkin

Some updates to my previous post, UF Law Professor Files Sex/Race Discrimination Lawsuit:

  • Paul Caron has the most extensive updates, including a link to a public email from Florida Dean Bob Jerry, which says, among other things,

    At this time, I am at liberty to say that the allegations of discrimination in this case are unfounded. We will be responding vigorously to this complaint, and we will provide a copy of our response when we do. There are important facts with bearing on this case that will come out when we submit our response.

  • Earlier, in Former Florida Law Prof Comments on Racial and Sexual Discrimination Lawsuit Against School and Dean Prof. Caron wrote, “Ms. Russell-Brown has sent me the following clarification:”

    I just wanted to clarify one point for your blog that was not covered by the National Law Journal article, but which is addressed in my complaint.

    I went on leave from the UF College of Law in August 2004, in order to meet the 2-year residency requirement for a DPhil in public international law at the University of Oxford (UK). It was while I was overseas that I felt more comfortable, as a “tenure-accruing” faculty member, speaking up about some of the statements and/or comments that I was hearing. I returned from leave back to Gainesville in January 2007, which is when I began to experience the difficulties resulting in my departure by the end of that year, December 31, 2007.

    However, while I was on leave and at Oxford for my doctoral studies, from August 2004 until December 2006, my “tenure clock” stopped, along with my publication obligation, and was “re-started” when I returned to academic service at the UF College of Law in January 2007. Consequently, my complaint does not allege that I was “passed over” for tenure consideration, in the sense of being denied tenure, but rather that I was not allowed to continue in my “tenure-accruing” position starting from January 2007, until the end of my “tenure probationary period” in 2009-2010 – that my “tenure clock” was unlawfully stopped on December 31, 2007, in retaliation for my disclosures, and I was not allowed to be considered for tenure in 2009-2010, as UF faculty regulations provide.

Other updates of note:

Posted in Law School, Law: Everything Else | 2 Comments

UF Law Professor Files Sex/Race Discrimination Lawsuit

Posted on February 7, 2009 by Michael Froomkin

Paul Caron has the details in TaxProf Blog: Former Florida Law Prof Files Racial and Sexual Discrimination Lawsuit Against School and Dean.

The well-written complaint — yes, just one side of the story — makes for ugly reading.

Posted in Law School, Law: Everything Else | 9 Comments

TARP: Let a Thousand Lawsuits Bloom

Posted on February 4, 2009 by Michael Froomkin

Alison Frankel writes in the Am Law Litigation Daily, Are Whistle-Blowers Lurking Under the Federal TARP?:

There were few regulations in place when the Treasury Department handed out the first $350 billion. Can the recipients be accused of making false claims when they hardly had to document their claims at all?

Yes, according to a new Fried Frank client alert. The three-page analysis by D.C. partners John Boese and James McCullough points to a letter that TARP special inspector Neil Barofsky recently sent to Iowa senator Chuck Grassley, outlining certifications and documentation that TARP intends to require of all those institutions that received funding. “False certifications,” the Fried Frank alert warns, “have been the basis for FCA claims when they were material to the government's decision to release funds or not to seek return of funds.”

Boese told us that the new paperwork requirements will impose post hoc rules for recipients, heightening their exposure. “Qui tam claims are almost a certainty,” Boese said. “Whether there's liability, that's a different question.”

Fried Frank's client memo also notes that the Treasury Department's interim conflict-of-interest and disclosure rules for contractors and financial agents may mean new False Claims Act exposure for businesses that provide TARP-related services, which are required to report any potential violations to the government.

It might be nice to see some of the hogs at the trough get…well trimmed at least.

Posted in Econ & Money: Mortgage Mess, Law: Everything Else | Comments Off on TARP: Let a Thousand Lawsuits Bloom