Word: antitrust
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1970-1979
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...decide whether IBM had monopolized various markets claimed in Memorex's $900 million antitrust suit, jurors needed a detailed understanding of things like "reverse engineering," "cross elasticity of supply" and "subordinated debentures." The trial lasted 96 days. The jury heard 87 witnesses and examined some 3,000 exhibits. After deliberating for 19 more days, it could not reach a unanimous verdict. Federal Judge Samuel Conti declared a mistrial. He then ruled in favor of IBM, though the jury had favored Memorex by 9 to 2. Suspecting that the jurors were baffled by the whole case, Judge Conti began asking...
...time or who earns more than jury duty pays-$30 a day plus some extras-will opt out. That leaves, says Stanford Law School Professor William Baxter, juries of "the old, the jobless and the poor." At the 14-month trial of SCM vs. Xerox, a $1.5 billion antitrust suit, the jurors' average education level was tenth grade...
...judge. So why do many lawyers choose to try complex cases before a jury? "Usually it's because they think they have a weak case that they couldn't win before a judge," says New York Lawyer David Boies, who defended IBM in one of its many antitrust suits...
...wants to avoid jury duty. Many lawyers and judges alike are wary of doing away with juries altogether in big cases. Judges have their own biases; at least juries offer what Los Angeles Lawyer Maxwell M. Blecher calls "a bouillabaisse of public viewpoints." These are worth hearing in the antitrust area. Says Business School Professor Donald Vinson: "The question in an antitrust case is not just whether one company should pay another money. It is whether economic power should be concentrated in a big corporation...
...Less law. Complex law makes for complex litigation. The hopelessly vague antitrust laws, for instance, have been a chronic problem for troubled courts since 1890 and produced a tangle of conflicting interpretations. The antitrust monster of U.S. vs. IBM is now ten years old and nowhere near resolution. Clarifying or simplifying labyrinthine laws would save millions of dollars in legal costs as well as free judges to work on other matters. Like regulatory schemes that do more harm than good by stifling competition, some laws might even be eliminated altogether...