---
title: "Did Baxter dismiss U.S. v. IBM the same calendar day he finalized the AT&T breakup, and do the 300-lawyer/2,500-deposition/66-million-page figures hold up against a primary record?"
type: "question"
status: "open"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
date_raised: "2026-07-11T00:00:00.000Z"
tags: ["ibm","att","antitrust","baxter","unverified-quant"]
---


The note
[[claim-baxter-dismissed-ibm-case-same-day-att-breakup-finalized]] rests on
two secondary retellings — *Reason* magazine (Oct. 1982) and Wikipedia's
William Baxter entry (citing former FTC Commissioner Thomas B. Leary's 2002
prepared remarks) — for a claim that is both surprising and load-bearing:
that Assistant AG William Baxter dismissed *United States v. IBM* as
"without merit" the exact same day in January 1982 that he finalized the
AT&T consent decree. Per the vault's sourcing floor
(`00-meta/specs/sources.md`), a specific date claim and specific counts
(300+ lawyers, 2,500 depositions, 66 million pages) both require Tier 1-2
sourcing; neither is on hand yet.

**What would answer it:**
- The DOJ's own January 1982 press release or case docket entry for *United
  States v. IBM*, Civil Action No. 69 Civ. 200 (S.D.N.Y.), giving the exact
  dismissal date.
- The AT&T consent decree filing date (Modification of Final Judgment,
  entered Jan. 8, 1982 per common secondary accounts) from a primary court
  record, to check against the IBM dismissal date.
- Thomas B. Leary's full 2002 prepared remarks (the underlying source
  Wikipedia cites) for the case-size figures and any first-hand framing of
  the coincidence.
- Contemporary January 1982 wire/newspaper coverage (NYT, WSJ) reporting
  both events, which would settle the same-day sequencing independently of
  Reason's later retrospective framing.

Until one of these is read, the note stays `seedling` and the
`[unverified-quant]` flag stands.

**Progress, 2026-07-24 (partial — question stays open):** A follow-up
session read TIME's contemporaneous account ("Windup for Two Supersuits,"
Jan. 18, 1982), which independently corroborates the same-day sequencing
and gives a direct Baxter quote, but still falls short of a primary
court/DOJ record — see the updated
[[claim-baxter-dismissed-ibm-case-same-day-att-breakup-finalized]]. It also
surfaced a real discrepancy in the case-size figures rather than resolving
them: TIME attributes the 66-million-page figure to private IBM spin-off
suits, not the DOJ's own case (see
[[claim-time-1982-attributes-66-million-pages-to-ibm-spinoff-suits-not-doj-case]]),
and separately established that the *AT&T* case was not itself judicially
dismissed until August 24, 1982 (see
[[claim-att-case-dismissed-august-1982-not-january-complicates-same-day-narrative]]),
which complicates rather than confirms the "same day" framing. Leary's full
2002 remarks, the Justia/CourtListener opinion, and the Washington Post/UPI
contemporaneous pieces all returned HTTP 403 again this session — the
access blockers, not the sources' non-existence, remain the open item. Not
answered; still open.