From: Ron Snyder [mailto:snyder@roguewave.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:48 AM

On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 06:55:26PM -0600, Edward S. Marshall wrote:

...

On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:30:19PM -0500, David Charlap wrote:

...

BUT if representatives from a dozen or a hundred ISPs

meet together and

...

...

choose to blackhole new.net for the explicit purpose of running them out of business, and then do so, they would be in violation of US anti-trust laws.

You mean, like the owners and operators of numerous core US networks getting together on an archived mailing list like this one, and openly discussing the idea of putting new.net out of business by various means (blackholing them, legally pressuring them, etc)?

You're right, that might constitute violation of anti-trust law. :-) But what do I know? I'm no lawyer.

I'm no lawyer either, but it seems that intent is a pretty hard case to make.

This isn't all criminal law. Pls reference the OJ Simpson case where he was acquited in the criminal system yet convicted in the civil system. The Civil system only requires a preponderance of the evidence and other evidence is admissible, that would never pass muster in a criminal case. As MS is also finding out, civil liabilities could have more far-reaching financial effects than criminal liabilities. Even if the criminal law case wins, simply defending against the civil liabilities cases may bankrupt the company (presupposing that you actually win those). It is the corporate equivalent of "death by a thousand cuts". Think of it like a high-stakes poker game; You may have a winning hand, but the guy with the deepest pockets may still "buy the pot". -- IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are encouraged to seek legal advice.