Re: Judge issues order against Microsoft

["John N. Bryan" <jnelson@bga.com>]

  >Before everyone jumps to high for joy some additional information:
  >
  >1) The judge turned down the request for fining MS 1Million/day during
  >     non-compliance with his order
  >
  
  True.  But this has not been ruled out, either:
  
  "In the 19-page ruling, Jackson denied for the moment the request,
  saying the government has yet to prove its case. But he went on to
  say that the government "appears to have a substantial likelihood
  of success" in the case and issued the preliminary injunction
  pending a resolution in the case, which isn't likely for at least six
  months."
  
  "But in a boost to the government, Jackson was quick to note that
  Microsoft is clearly not out of the woods yet. "Although the
  government has not satisfied the evidentiary burden necessary to
  sustain a finding of contempt, it does not necessarily follow that
  Microsoft's licensing practices are, in fact, in compliance with the
  terms of the [consent decree]," Jackson wrote."
  
  "Jackson agreed with arguments the Justice Department has made in
  its court papers, writing that "adopting Microsoft's interpretation
  would appear to render [the decree] essentially meaningless." "
  
  
  >2) There has been no announcement of timelines
  >
  
  Not entirely:
  
  "Jackson's appointee Lawrence Lessig, a visiting professor at
  Harvard Law School, is to gather further evidence in the case and
  report back by May 31. The judge will then make a final decision."
  
  
  >3) MS will invariably appeal
  >
  
  No doubt.
  
  >This is a good first step though
  >
  
  "Yes, it certainly is, Ollie."
  
  "Jackson barred Microsoft from requiring
  computer makers to install its Internet Explorer browser as a
  condition for licensing operating systems "including Windows 95
  or any successor version thereof." "
  
  How that last sentence might play out will be interesting.
  
  -JB