Microsoft has a surprising ally in its argument that Google is an abusive monopolist: Samuel Miller, the prosecutor who led the federal government’s first antitrust case against Microsoft more than a decade ago.

“Having prosecuted the Microsoft case, its seems to me that Google, as a monopoly, is engaging in the same tactics to keep its dominant position as Microsoft was engaging in,” Miller says. “Those are the same tactics that got Microsoft in trouble.”

Miller served as the lead counsel in the inaugural United States v. Microsoft case, which the Department of Justice brought in the early ’90s. It was the first in a series of landmark legal skirmishes that finally ended in 2001 with a consent decree constraining Microsoft’s business practices.

In that case and in a similar trial in the European Union, Microsoft was found to have violated antitrust laws.

In a juicy, ironic twist of fate, Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) now finds itself on the opposite side of the battle. It claims that rival Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) is unfairly using its position as a monopoly in the search market to impede the software giant’s ability to compete. Microsoft filed a formal complaint with the European Commission on Thursday.

In a blog post enumerating the company’s grievances, Microsoft chief counsel Brad Smith cited several examples of what his company claims are Google’s unfair business practices.

Miller believes all of Microsoft’s arguments are “valid and worthy of serious consideration.”

Other antitrust attorneys, professors and experts had differing views. Read the rest of this entry »

Israel’s parliament has passed a law that allows courts to revoke the citizenship of anyone convicted of spying, treason or aiding its enemies.

The bill, which was passed by 37 votes to 11 in the Knesset, was sponsored by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s hardline Yisrael Beiteinu party.

Mr Lieberman said afterwards: “Without loyalty, there can be no citizenship.”

But critics say it is discriminatory towards Israel’s Arab minority, which makes up a fifth of the population.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (Acri) said the bill showed politicians had “lost sight of a basic concept in democracy… that citizenship is neither a privilege nor a prize but rather a protected right”. ‘Humiliating and discriminatory’

The amendment to the Citizenship Law of 1952 passed by the Knesset on Monday night has its roots in Mr Lieberman’s “no loyalty, no citizenship” campaign during the 2009 elections.

Initially, he pushed for a bill that would have required all non-Jews taking citizenship to swear loyalty to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state”.

But when it proved too controversial for the governing coalition, Yisrael Beiteinu instead sponsored legislation to revoke the citizenship of anyone convicted of espionage, treason or aiding the enemy during war.

“Any person who harms the country cannot enjoy the benefits of citizenship and its fruit,” Mr Lieberman said after the vote.

“The law will help confront the phenomenon by which there are those who take advantage of our democracy in order to undermine it, and by which those who are called citizens collaborate with the enemy.” Read the rest of this entry »

Monday morning, we pregamed the Supreme Court arguments in a case concerning a campaign-finance law in Arizona.

The law, called the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, provides subsidies to state-office candidates who agree to take no business, union or political party money and accept no more than $140 from an individual supporter. If a nonparticipating opponent spends more than a preset amount, the state provides matching funds to a participating candidate.

Conservative political candidates and political groups contend that the law deters nonsubsidized candidates from spending as much money as they wish for fear of triggering additional funding for their opponents. And that, they argue, violates their First Amendment rights.

According to this story by the WSJ’s Jess Bravin, during argument on Monday, the conservative justices on the court voices skepticism over the provision.

“Each time they speak, the more work that they do, the more their opponents benefit,” said William Maurer, an attorney representing the challengers. “Their speech is turning into the mechanism by which their political goals are undercut.” Read the rest of this entry »

After working its way through the Arkansas Legislature, Governor Mike Beebe’s corrections reform bill was signed into law on Tuesday. Senate Bill 750 aims to improve public safety and slow prison population growth.

Members of law enforcement, prosecutors and others who assisted with the bill were present as Beebe made it official. Beebe said the new law will be a work in progress and will likely be tweaked and changed in the future.

“This is kind of new territory” Beebe said. “We don’t know if this is going to work. You know, by anecdotal evidence, we think we will see some effect. Is it going to have as much effect as everyone hopes or desires? Nobody knows.”

Beebe said he will measure the success of the law by decreases in recidivism, a lower prison population and the ability to keep violent offenders locked up.

Source

The Syrian government said it would consider abolishing a more than 40-year-old emergency law following the deaths of anti-government protesters.

Thursday’s announcement by Syrian President Bashar Assad’s media adviser during a televised news conference came after at least 10 protesters in the southern city of Deraa were killed Wednesday in clashes with soldiers. The government said 10 protesters were killed, while other reports put the number at dozens.

The emergency law, put in place in 1963, suspends most constitutional rights.

Assad’s spokesman said the president did not order soldiers to fire at the protesters. She also said that the Syrian people’s demands were just.

“There are some demands and we will respond to these demands. Some of it will be very quickly. Some of it might take time and discussions,” the adviser said. “If there is a legitimate demand by the people, then the authorities will take it seriously. But if somebody just wants to cause trouble, then it is a different story.”

Protests began in Syria on March 15 and follow uprisings in several countries in the Middle East, including Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen and Bahrain.

Source

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard (R) signed an extreme anti-abortion bill into law Tuesday requiring that women undergo a 72 hour waiting period and mandatory counseling from a crisis pregnancy center (CPC) before obtaining an abortion. Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, clarified that CPCs are “they’re not licensed, they’re not regulated, they’re not accredited and they’re openly ideological.” The law does not make exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

South Dakota is the first state in the country to mandate a 72 hour waiting period, although 25 states currently require a 24 hour waiting period. After the law takes effect July 1, women seeking abortions could have to make multiple trips to South Dakota’s only abortion provider in Sioux Falls. Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated that they would file a lawsuit against South Dakota.

Currently, there are an estimated 3,500 CPCs nationwide, most of which are affiliated with one or more national umbrella organizations. CPCs often pose as comprehensive health centers and offer “free” pregnancy tests. Some CPCs coerce and intimidate women out of considering abortion as an option, and do not offer women neutral or comprehensive medical advice. Often CPCs are run by anti-abortion zealots who are not licensed medical professionals.

Sources

The battle over Wisconsin’s new law curbing the union rights of public workers is headed for the state Supreme Court after a lower court declined to weigh in on the issue.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, which had been asked to throw out a week-old order temporarily blocking the law’s implementation, said the issues involved were so fundamental — a clash between the state’s open meetings law and the separation of legislative and judicial powers — that it made sense to send the case straight to state’s highest court.

“Because this appeal presents significant issues, we believe the Supreme Court is the proper forum,” the court wrote in its holding.

The law in question strips teachers, highway workers, nurses and other public employees of collective bargaining rights they have enjoyed for 50 years here.

Last Friday, a judge in Dane County, where the state Capitol building is located, granted a restraining order stopping official publication of the bill, which was passed by the Republican-controlled legislature and signed by its Republican Governor Scott Walker last week. Read the rest of this entry »

The Supreme Court won’t stop the release of Federal Reserve Board documents identifying financial companies that received Fed loans to survive the financial crisis.

An association of bankers wanted to stop the release but the court refused Monday to hear its appeal.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City had said that such information isn’t automatically exempt from requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

News Corp.’s Fox News Network LLC and Bloomberg L.P. sued separately for details about loans that commercial banks and Wall Street firms received and the collateral they put up. But the Fed argued that if it identified banks that drew emergency loans, it could cause a run on those institutions, undermine the loan programs and potentially hurt the economy.

Source

As legislators discuss repealing or amending the state’s medical marijuana law, a Kalispell lawmaker wants to give Montanans another chance to vote on the issue.

“Even good golfers use a mulligan now and again,” said Rep. Keith Regier of Kalispell, referring to a golfer’s do-over of a drive.

The House Human Services Committee had a short hearing Monday on his House Bill 175, which would ask voters in November 2012 whether they are for or against repealing the Montana Medical Marijuana Act.

In 2004, Montana voters approved, by 62 percent to 38 percent, an initiative to allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes.

Since the fall of 2009, the number of medical marijuana cardholders has skyrocketed in Montana and now tops 28,300.

Under HB175, the version of the law that contains any modifications made by the 2011 Legislature would be presented to voters to decide whether to repeal or keep the law.

Jim Smith, representing sheriffs, supported the bill, saying the group is “very comfortable” putting the issue before voters again.

But Tom Daubert, an author of the 2004 ballot issue, opposed the bill.

“I think the law needs a lot fixing,” he said. “I don’t think it’s that hard to do.”

Bruce Scharf, one of the state’s first 300 cardholders, said medical marijuana has helped him function better.

“If the repeal was to take place, it would hurt so many patients and the quality of their lives,” Scharf said. “We just need to tweak the regulations and get it back under control.”

The committee took no immediate action on the bill.

Source

Civil libertarians opposed to the government’s expanded wiretapping powers were bolstered Monday after an appellate court reinstated a lawsuit challenging an eavesdropping law passed by Congress in 2008.

In one of the few remaining lawsuits on the issue, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups charged that the expanded surveillance powers granted by Congress were unconstitutional and illegal. A Federal District Court judge in Manhattan had thrown out the lawsuit, saying the plaintiffs failed to show they were actually spied upon and therefore did not have legal standing to sue. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.

It found that the groups challenging the wiretapping law, including lawyers and journalists communicating with people overseas who might fall under terrorism investigations, had a reasonable fear that their international calls and e-mail would be monitored by the government.

While the appeals court did not rule on the merits of the case, the groups bringing the case said they were glad to be able to bring the legal substance of their challenge to court.

“I have always thought that we had a very strong argument,” said Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the A.C.L.U. “The new law allows the government to engage in dragnet surveillance of Americans’ communication, and it makes the Fourth Amendment altogether irrelevant.”

The law, known as the FISA Amendments Act, followed a furious debate over the legality of President George W. Bush’s secret eavesdropping program. In amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Congress gave covert agencies greater leeway to monitor international communications without direct court oversight.

As a presidential candidate at the time, Senator Barack Obama opposed the broadening of executive power, but he angered some liberal supporters by reversing his position and voting for the measure.

The Justice Department, which could seek a rehearing in the Second Circuit to prevent the case from returning to the district court, had no comment Monday.

Source