Re: Judges sympathetic to Microsoft

[Chris Pall <x97pall@wmich.edu>]

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> *******
>
> http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/daily/0,1237,101980421-microcourt,00.htm
>
> time.com / TIME Daily
> April 21, 1998
>
>    WASHINGTON: Score round two to Microsoft? A Federal panel heard the
>    software firm's unbundling appeal Tuesday with a sympathetic ear. "The
>    judges were more critical of the Justice Department," says TIME Daily
>    Washington correspondent Declan McCullagh, "interrupting each other to
>    quiz the government's lawyer." Nor were the omens good for Judge
>    Thomas Penfield Jackson, who made the original order that Microsoft
>    disentangle Internet Explorer from Windows 95. "That's not the way we
>    hand out preliminary injunctions up here," warned Judge Patricia Wald
>    -- who is, in normal circumstances, a big fan of antitrust law.

The arrogance is overwhelming. Perhaps if Pat would stop looking down her
nose, she would understand the facts.

>  
>
>    All in all, the judges were surprisingly tech-minded, offering
>    lawyers on both sides an esoteric pop quiz. Is Internet Explorer
>    integrated or bundled? Has any computer manufacturer taken advantage
>    of the unbundling order? (No, shrugged the DOJ). And most importantly,
>    how big will the Windows 95 market be after the June 25 release of
>    Windows 98? For Judge Wald, that question was rhetorical: "It's going
>    to be minuscule." Which means that whatever the appeals court rules in
>    the next three months, it may not matter anyway. If the DOJ is indeed
>    planning a wider antitrust case, it had better hurry up. --Chris Taylor

Amazing - all of a sudden the judges were tech-minded. Sounds like bias to me.
Microsoft is held accountable and the judges don't have a clue about
technology. But when Microsoft wins - those smart judges. What's more ironic
is that the judges contradict themselves. The judges complain about the lack
of notification and the speed at which Jackson imposed the injunction - but
then chided the same crew for not getting the ball rolling fast enough.

>  
>
> ********
>
> http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/afternoon/0,1012,1918,00.html
>
> time.com / The Netly News / Afternoon Line
> April 21, 1998
>
> Lone Justice
>
>    Scoring court hearings, let alone predicting winners, is always a
>    chancy business. Every trial attorney can spin yarns of surprise
>    upsets -- and upsetting surprises. But if this morning's oral
>    arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
>    Columbia is any indication, Microsoft is going to win the second round
>    in its legal battle with the Department of Justice. The three appeals
>    court judges repeatedly jabbed pointed questions at Douglas Melamed,
>    principal deputy assistant attorney general for antitrust, sometimes
>    interrupting each other in their eagerness. What was the point, asked
>    Judge Stephen F. Williams, of the lower court's order, anyway? Did any
>    computer manufacturers take advantage of Microsoft's
>    not-exactly-voluntary offer to sell the browser front end without
>    Windows 95? No, Melamed admitted. Judge Patricia Wald wondered if the
>    current legal tussle was pointless. "Once Windows 98 hits the market,
>    will there be any market for Windows 95?" Replied Melamed: "I don't
>    know." Wald did. "It's going to be very minuscule," she predicted.

Taking cues from Microsoft? Is this the point? Is this the way justice works?
Does it base legal decisions on the market?

>    Williams also said that since Windows 95 and Internet Explorer share a
>    lot of the same code, it "seems to me to be kind of integrated." Ouch.

Great. This must be what they are talking about when they are talking about
the judges being more tech-minded. This is an outrage - a complete defecation
of justice.

>    This can hardly be encouraging news for U.S. District Judge Thomas
>    Penfield Jackson, the author of the order in question. Even if the
>    appeals court nixes Jackson's injunction, as now seems likely, the
>    case is far from over. The panel could tell Jackson to continue with
>    the case -- this time much more carefully. --By Declan
>    McCullagh/Washington

>  
>
> Suit of the Century
>
>    As the millennium and its bug approach, high tech companies are
>    starting to get nervous about their liability if their best efforts to
>    eradicate the bug should fail and serious problems ensue. It's no
>    surprise then that a group of tech companies is rallying behind a
>    California state assembly bill that would protect them from punitive
>    damages in the event of lawsuits arising form Y2K disruptions. Note

Ahh... big business at work again! All of the benefits of running a business
but without the risk! Boy I wish I could start a business without risk.

>    that this does not eliminate their exposure by any means, since it
>    would not apply to actual damages and would cover them only if they
>    could show that they had made a demonstrable, good faith effort to
>    overcome the glitch. What the industry fears almost more than an
>    actual Y2K disaster is packs of lawyers smelling rich high tech blood,
>    and with a ZD survey showing that only 17 percent of companies are
>    currently prepared for the bug, there is clearly cause for
>    trepidation. [By Jonathan Gregg]
>  

FUD.

--------------------------------------------------------------
                       Christopher Pall
                      ThinkBiz, DPS, WMU
                       Ann Arbor, MI USA

                      x97pall@wmich.edu
       http://members.tripod.com/~ChrisPall/index.html
--------------------------------------------------------------