[opendtv] Re: EPA tightens up power specs for PCs
- From: John Willkie <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:45:31 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
The case I remember was civil, not criminal. Not having access to Nexus/Lexus,
I'm going to have to look into this off-line.
I will concede that at least some of the parties are the same, the timing is
similar, and the case name rings a bell, but I'll have to go back to secondary
materials to get to the nut of the matter.
I ponder from time to time that all the bus lines in Tijuana are
privately-owned city franchises, where rides (now) cost $0.65 cents, but on the
U.S. side, the "companies" are subsidized by government and the minimum ride
for able-bodied persons other than students and under 65 years of age is $2.00
plus.
Of course, the buses in Tijuana were once in service (70's, 80's, 90's) in U.S.
cities. And, bus drivers get a base salary plus a percentage of their ticket
sales. None seems to complain about wages. In Mexico.
John Willkie
-----Original Message-----
>From: John Shutt <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Oct 30, 2006 1:24 PM
>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: EPA tightens up power specs for PCs
>
>John,
>
>Granted I'm not even close to being a lawyer, but by the way I read
>Lexus/Nexus, the case was moved from Los Angeles to Chicago upon petition by
>the defendants.
>
>Therefore the Chicago case is the Los Angeles case, and the fine was $5000,
>not $1, but the message remains the same.
>
>UNITED STATES v. NATIONAL CITY LINES, Inc., et al.
>Cr. No. 19270
>UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
>CENTRAL DIVISION
>
>7 F.R.D. 393; 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1686
>
>August 14, 1947
>OPINION BY: YANKWICH
>OPINION: [*395]
>
>The defendants, indicted for violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, 15
>U.S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 15 note, have moved to transfer the proceeding to another
>district under the provision of the Federal Criminal Rules of Procedure, 18
>U.S.C.A. following section 687, which reads:
>
>'The court upon motion of the defendant shall transfer the proceeding as to
>him to another district or division, if it appears from the indictment or
>information or from a bill of particulars that the offense was committed in
>more than one district or division and if the court is satisfied that in the
>interest of justice the proceeding should be transferred to another district
>or division in which the commission of the offense is charged.'
>
>The motion of the defendants to transfer the cause to the Northern District
>of Illinois, Eastern Division, is, therefore, granted.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 3:59 PM
>Subject: [opendtv] Re: EPA tightens up power specs for PCs
>
>
>> All that may be true, but the LA case was on point. and a $1 verdict for
>> the plaintiffs.
>>
>> In the NCL case, GM found advantage by -- instead of letting them fail
>> profoundly -- buying failing transit companies and getting them to buy
>> GM-centric products and services. It kept failing companies alive, with
>> GM holding the tether. As a result of the verdict, transit in Chicago
>> became government-owned on the same post-war time scale as most others.
>>
>> Funny, this summary didn't mention GM's cross-investment in Dupont (which
>> was spun off a few years before the verdict due to government action and
>> settled separately.)
>>
>>
>> John Willkie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: John Shutt <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>Sent: Oct 30, 2006 11:55 AM
>>>To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: [opendtv] Re: EPA tightens up power specs for PCs
>>>
>>>From Wikipedia, but mostly accurate. GM was convicted on antitrust for
>>>forcing National City Lines (the evil GM bus company) to buy only GM
>>>busses.
>>>There was no convictions on conspiring to purchase and put out of business
>>>trolley lines.
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
>>>
>>>Government attorney Bradford Snell has written that in 1949 GM and its
>>>partners in NCL were convicted in U.S. District Court in Chicago of
>>>criminal
>>>conspiracy in this matter and fined $5,000 each for anti-trust violations
>>>(contracts in restraint of trade, i.e. forcing subsidiaries to buy
>>>products
>>>from their owners: GM buses, Firestone tires, Standard and Phillips oil).
>>>
>>>The claim above is often repeated and is based on testimony by Snell to a
>>>United States Senate inquiry in 1974.
>>>
>>>The case ultimately reached the United States Supreme Court in United
>>>States
>>>v. National City Lines Inc. 334 U.S. 573, 596 (1948) ("National City
>>>I")[1]
>>>which reversed lower court rulings on the case.
>>>
>>>The proceedings were against General Motors and its subsidiary National
>>>City
>>>Lines, along with seven other corporations. They were indicted on two
>>>counts
>>>under the US Sherman Antitrust Act. The charges, in summary, were:
>>>
>>>Conspiring to acquire control of a number of transit companies, forming a
>>>transportation monopoly;
>>>All defendants were acquitted on this charge.
>>>
>>>Conspiring to monopolize sales of buses and supplies to companies owned by
>>>National City Lines.
>>>General Motors alone was convicted on this charge.
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Tom Barry" <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:48 PM
>>>Subject: [opendtv] Re: EPA tightens up power specs for PCs
>>>
>>>
>>>> John -
>>>>
>>>> Which case are you referring to?
>>>>
>>>> - Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John Willkie wrote:
>>>>> Ah, yes. The "famous" case in LA. After 13 years of litigation the
>>>>> "trolley" interests (long bought out by GM) "won."
>>>>>
>>>>> The award should have been a message. 13 years of litigation. You
>>>>> "won." And, the judge awarded you $1.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>>>
>>>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>>>FreeLists.org
>>>
>>>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>>>unsubscribe in the subject line.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>>
>> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>> FreeLists.org
>>
>> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
>- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
>FreeLists.org
>
>- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
>unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
