Re: POL: Reaction to Microsoft Ruling

From: Zero Powers (
Date: Wed Apr 12 2000 - 23:26:08 MDT

>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>
>Zero Powers wrote:

> > 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
> > that from, but I was merely pointing out that that is simply not even
> > 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
> > 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
> >
>You claim Alcoa is a foreign company. This is not so, it is an american

The following quote comes from the more recent case of United States v.
Nippon Paper Industries Co., 109 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 03/17/1997) 109 F.3d 1,

"In United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945)
(Alcoa), the Second Circuit, sitting as a court of last resort, see 15
U.S.C. Section(s) 29 (authorizing designation of a court of appeals as a
court of last resort for certain antitrust cases), mulled a civil action
brought under Section One against a Canadian corporation for acts committed
entirely abroad which, the government averred, had produced substantial
anticompetitive effects within the United States. The Alcoa court read
American Banana narrowly; that case, Judge Learned Hand wrote, stood only
for the principle that "[w]e should not impute to Congress an intent to
punish all whom its courts can catch, for conduct which has no consequences
within the United States." Id. at 443. But a sovereign ordinarily can impose
liability for conduct outside its borders that produces consequences within
them, and while considerations of comity argue against applying Section One
to situations in which no effect within the United States has been shown --
the American Banana scenario -- the statute, properly interpreted, does
proscribe extraterritorial acts which were "intended to affect imports [to
the United States] and did affect them." Id. at 444. On the facts of Alcoa,
therefore, the presumption against extraterritoriality had been overcome,
and the Sherman Act had been violated. See id. at 444-45."

>Judge Learned Hand???? Is that a real name?


> > All of which goes back to the original argument (getting back somewhat
> > the thread subject) that moving to a foreign state would not do MS any
> > in terms of their antitrust problems.
>Which you have yet to prove.

See above.


"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson

Get Your Private, Free Email at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:17 MDT