[Am-info] When will the judge rule?

[T. Guilbert]

In a message dated 2002 September 27 (Friday), timestamp 02:34 PM, 
   on the topic Re: [Am-info] When will the judge rule?,
   "John J. Urbaniak" <jjurban@attglobal.net> wrote:

"|> >As I see it, the longer she takes, the better.
"|> >
"|> >I think if she were inclined to accept the DoJ - MS settlement, she
"|> >would have done it by now.
"|>
"|> That's a good bet.  However, the other edge on the blade will
"|> likely be a long and protracted appeal again.  Not being a legal
"|> scholar, I don't know how long that could be, or what the limits
"|> are.
"|>
"|> Anyone know?

"|I don't think there's a possibility for another appeal.  This *is*
"|the appeal, isn't it?  

Judge Jackson's decision was appealed, and parts of it were upheld,
parts reversed, as you note below.  Microsoft will have another bite
at the apple after Judge K-K rules, but her ruling deals only with the
penalty, not the actual liability, which Judge Jackson decided and the
Court of Appeals upheld.  Although the Court of Appeals heard the
earlier appeal en banc, and was unanimous, Microsoft has the option to
ask for a reconsideration on a new appeal because, until all issues of
the matter are disposed of, including the penalty, the earlier
decision of the Court of Appeals is technically interlocutory, not res
judicata. 

"|This is the result of the appeal of Judge
"|Penfield Jackson's decision to split up the company which was
"|remanded to this new Judge.  As I remember it, the Appeals Court
"|upheld Jackson on everything except the penalty and some issue about
"|the browser.

"|They could possibly appeal to the Supremes, but I think they already
"|turned down an appeal.

The bases for an appeal as of _right_ to the Supreme Court are few and
narrow; most cases the Supreme Court decides come before it on writs
of certiori, which the Court may decide to grant (hearing an appeal)
or deny.  About a tenth of one percent of writs of cert. are graned,
but, given the importance of the Microsoft case, and the
politicization of the present Court, I should be completely
unsurprised if the Supreme Court accepts an appeal of this case. 

"|And you can't just appeal because you don't like the decision.  You
"|have to have grounds for the appeal, 

Oh, given the breadth of the issues involved, it would be child's play
to make substantive assignments of error on the conclusions of law;
that does not mean that the grounds would be _winning_ ones, but only
that the issue easily could be put in front of the Supreme Court with
no lawyer risking sanctions for affixing his or her signature to a
frivolous pleading. 

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
/*\   T. Guilbert
\ /   "Ethical at One of One dot Net"  
 X    Portland, Oregon, United States of America  
/ \     [ASCII Ribbon Campaign against HTML postings] 
-----------------------------------------------------------