Re: POL: Reaction to Microsoft Ruling

From: Zero Powers (
Date: Thu Apr 13 2000 - 22:50:58 MDT

>From: Charlie Stross <>

>On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 08:40:50AM -0400, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:

> > Ok, point taken. Now counterpoint: OPEC. OPEC is a monopoly.
>No it isn't; OPEC is a cartel. There's a fundamental difference.

Well for all the practical reasons I listed in my earlier post (as well as
the ones you listed which I have snipped), there is just no way that the US
would attempt to sue OPEC or its member nations under the Sherman Act.
However, "technically" I think Mike has a point and that the actions of OPEC
could be said to be violative of the Act.

The act provides that: "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or
otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the
several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." I
think its pretty clear that this is the very purpose of OPEC. OPEC, in
point of fact, is little more than a conspiracy to fix the international
price of crude oil. That is a prima facie violation of the act.


"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 - 14:09:19 MDT