The American Antitrust Institute has a preview tonight of a Wall Street Journal report on the reaction of the antitrust community to the outsourcing of its legal and economic services. (WSJ reports: Antitrust Community Terrified of Outsourcing: Economists, Attorneys Looking to U.S. for Protection., April 1, 2004).
The exclusive story is appearing on the day of the Spring ABA Antitrust Section meeting in Washington, D.C. The article explains that a coalition called Americans for Keeping Antitrust American is being formed, with the motto “Cutthroat Competition Won’t Fly in a Free Country.” The WSJ report gives gruesome details of current and planned outsourcing, along with quotes from key figures in the antitrust community.
- Editor’s Note: The antitrust crowd has always been pro-free-trade, including outsourcing, until the trend came home to roost in their nests. I guess it depends whose Outsourcing Ox is being gored. How foolish of me to expect principled consistency.
- Update (04-02-04): Like one of my favorite weblawgers, I feel the need today to remind visitors that I knew the WSJ article “previewed” at AAI’s website, and discussed above, was a spoof. You did notice that I highlighted the word “foolish” in my Editor’s Note, didn’t you? Hats off to Bert Foer and the aai gang for a classic, well-crafted April Fool’s prank. [Disclosure: Bert’s a friend, and I’m responsible for compiling the aai Guide to Antitrust Resources on the Web.]
Don’t know whether “we” earned it, but ethicalEsq and haikuEsq are taking a few days off (to visit a favorite niece and nephew*).
. .
[No, that’s not their grandfather, it’s their dad, my twin brother, Arthur. Yes, the kids are cuter and smarter than their uncle and father (but not than their Mommy).]
We 
Rothenberg argues in his brief that the elimination of bias requirement “has turned into an engine of divisive political ideology.” As evidence, Rothenberg identifies approximately 10 courses that he claims represent the politicization of the requirement.
. .
Rothenberg’s other arguments, that the elimination of bias requirement was designed on an ideological basis or that the Board has approved courses on an ideological basis, also lack any support. Rothenberg has presented no evidence that the elimination of bias requirement was designed on an ideological basis or that the Board has approved courses on an ideological basis. In the context of Rothenberg’s argument, “ideological” appears to be shorthand for something with which he disagrees. Merely asserting that the elimination of bias requirement has ideological origins or is applied ideologically does not create a cognizable claim.
Amicus curiae Peter Swanson argues that the failure to allow lawyers to opt out of the requirement makes the elimination of bias requirement unconstitutional because lawyers are a “captive audience.” . . . We have found no case where the Supreme Court has applied the captive audience doctrine in the “negative” sense, that is, where the government requires an individual to be “captive” as opposed to protecting the individual from being captive. Assuming arguendo that the captive audience doctrine is relevant in the context of this case, we believe that it raises essentially the same First Amendment concerns that Rothenberg makes when he argues that he is unconstitutionally forced to attend elimination of bias courses.
There is something here for everyone — from a compilation of the most significant legal problems faced by the Simpsons, and quotes from Lutz and Homer relevant to the status of lawyers in our society, to a discussion of hyper-irony as applied to lawyers. I won’t tempt you to skip this assignment by quoting excessively from the article in this space. However, I do want to point out, given my recent writings on 
“our culture’s belief, based upon our TV lawyers, that the practice of law is really not all that complicated and that anyone could manage to maneuver the law.” 
.. (semble)
[T]he U.S. focused on Microsoft’s effort to eliminate rival web browsers as a to Microsoft’s monopoly in the PC operating systems market. The EU case, however, appears to be directly focused on Microsoft’s efforts to stifle competiton in the media player and low-end server markets. 
A credible remedy with respect to Windows Media Player needs to require at least two things. First, Microsoft must unbundled the Windows Media Player from Windows. Preferably, Microsoft would not be allowed to distribute Windows Media Player with Windows. Most reports, however, suggest that the EU will require Microsoft to offer two versions of Windows, one with and one without Windows Media Player. So long as Microsoft is not allowed to charge the same (or higher) price for the stripped down version of Windows, this will still be a significant step forward. Second, Microsoft must open up the formats at the server level so that Content Providers can choose among competing providers of streaming technologies. 
As explained in an 
” Sharp design and simplicity are in. Acronyms are out, along with data transfer speeds, kilobytes and megabytes as marketing tools.” 
Showing that 
. . .