Zero Powers wrote:
>
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@datamann.com>
> >
> >"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> >
> > > Zero Powers wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> > > > >
> > > > >Literally by your intepretation, yes, however the US has never
> >brought
> > > > >an anti-trust suit against a foreign company.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong again. The US sues foreign companies *all the time* under the
> >Sherman
> > > > Act. The first time it was done successfully was way back in 1945 in
> >the
> > > > case of US v. Alcoa (148 F.2d 416). Alcoa was a Canadian corporation
> >which
> > > > was sued for acts committed *entirely* outside the borders of the US.
> >As
> > > > long as your business has a sufficient impact on trade in the US, it
> >simply
> > > > doesn't matter where you are based or where you do business. There is
> > > > really no dispute about it.
> > >
> > > Alcoa: ALuminum COmpany of America..... hardly Canadian.
> >
> >Morover, ALCOA (Aluminum Company of America) was sued because it had
> >obtained a
> >total lock on all aluminum mines in Canada of any consequence. As that was
> >the
> >only supplier of a strategic resource metal to our refineries on the
> >Columbia
> >River, and its primary customer was the US Gov't, it was obviously a quite
> >different situation. Since that was 1945, you might remember that we
> >happened to
> >be at war at the time, and aluminum was necessary for airplane
> >manufacturing.
> >ALCOA executives were also convicted of war profiteering....
>
> And so? Your claim, remember, was that "the US has never brought an
> anti-trust suit against a foreign company." I have no idea where you got
> that from, but I was merely pointing out that that is simply not even close
> to being true. The Alcoa case is not the only case where this happened. It
> is the landmark case where Judge Learned Hand first held that the Sherman
> Act can be used against a foreign company, even if the claimed acts all
> occurred outside the US border. There have been *many* others since then.
>
You claim Alcoa is a foreign company. This is not so, it is an american
company.
Judge Learned Hand???? Is that a real name?
> All of which goes back to the original argument (getting back somewhat to
> the thread subject) that moving to a foreign state would not do MS any good
> in terms of their antitrust problems.
Which you have yet to prove.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:17 MDT