[KLUG Members] MSFT wins

[members@kalamazoolinux.org]

>>The Court of Appeals has dashed the sentence, but has remanded the
>>cse back to the District Court level, and remove Thomas Penfield
>>Jackson from the case. It is possible that a rework with a different
>>judge may result in the same decision and/or the same sentence.
>I dunno, everything that I have heard thus far coming out of the various
>talking heads and sound-byte interviews lends people to believe that 'splitting
>up' will not be a consideration.
Right, you don't know, and nether do the pundits, analysts, and commentators.
I was merely limiting my remarks to the possible; judges tend to rule nothing
out until they (and not pundits) have examined the case.


>...I think this will make any other judges less prone to follow Jackson's 
>lead when solutions are being dolled out.
I think Federal Court judges are going to make up their own minds about
these things, and is hard to "mastrermind" what these folks are going to
do. I very much doubt (and it would be thrown out if discovered) that a 
judge went into examination of this (or any) case with the sort of pre-
disposition thats been slung around the media since the decision.

>Furthermore, a lot of the discussions I am reading and hearing point to the
>possibility of a 'settlement' between the DoJ and M$, and all are saying the
>same thing - Micro$oft will probably go for anything short of a break-up when
>considering a settlement resolution.
This is almost always the course these cases take; counsel for both sides 
can see the handwriting on the wall, and understand that a negotiated settle-
ment is going to yeild a better outcome over the long haul.

>Peter Buxton wrote:
>>Scott Wood Wrote:
>> overturning all but accused judge Jackson of being prejudiced in his
>> choice to split of microsoft. (pointing out the nature of his language as
>> being hostile and such)  I think this will make any other judges less
>> prone to follow Jackson's lead when solutions are being dolled out.
>They accused him of displaying impartial attitude and acts. You have to
>remember you're reading the official words of the Federal judiciary. If they
>all but said something, they did *not* say it.

Judges are, as a group, probably the most rigorous and thorough users of
language in our society. When you read the body of a decision, they mean 
**exactly** what they say, nothing more, nothing less. They rebuked Jackson
in some very precise terms, and they did so, quite deliberately.

>Frankly, I read 1/2 of Penfield Jackson's findings of fact last night (200K)
>and I must say that it was damning, but one or two points, very minor, were
>unsupported (to me, not having sifted through 2 years of evidence). I had
>not heard half of MS's nigh criminal mischief.
Yes, read the OTHER half! :)

>The appellate court overturned the sentence--or the remedy, rather--of
>breakup. That's all. Their 7-0 decision in removing Penfield Jackson could
>be read as paranoid caution in keeping the judiciary's impartiality
>inviolate, rather than pro-MS sentiment; frankly, that a US Appelate Court
>(rumored soft on business) upheld the finding of MS as an abusive monopoly
>astounds me (in a good way).
Yes, goo precis. The media is making a lot of ballyhoo over the fact that 
the sentance was vacated; I see this as more of a rebuke of Jackson and a
call for judicial review (in the name of maintaining the integrity of the
court system) more than anything else. The guilty is still, to a very great 
degree guilty, as charged.

>The breakup of AT&T was all for the best. Each RBOC is now the size the Bell
>System used to be. But separating long-distance and 5 final-mile servers was
>easy. Each state's Bell company was a separate entity. Splitting and joining
>was simple math, as it were. The breakup of M$ would likely have been the
>Federal judiciary's Viet Nam--or another Roe v. Wade. Breakup would be a
>political, economic and judicial nightmare. 

1. Operating Systems
	Windows... CE ME NT, etc.
2. Applications
	Office, Project, Money, etc.
3. Network Products
	MSIE, MSN, MS Messenger, Cable systems, etc.
4. Manufacturing
	Mice, Keyboards, X-BOX, financing, etc.

Then, cut 'em free and let everyone compete; I might put in place court 
review of alliances between the above four, but this was done in the AT&T
breakup to ensure that the surviving AT&T divisions and the RBOCs didn't
"act as one".

>I also cannot see the good in a protracted battle over hard to prove issues 
>like licensing...
Battle, schattle. The sentence is passed (as above), case closed! :) 
What's hard to prove here? The license is a contract, and the lawyers can
pin down the meaning and intent of the contract and go with that.

>Even as the Federal Govt.'s POSE standard cleared the was for Unix (and
>OpenVMS, Windows NT, et al.), a new application standard would go a long way
>to cracking MS's monopoly. ...
>...an app standard would be a real FUD-killer.
I think this is starting to happen; indications of it are items like DOD 
adoption of Star Office, broad relization that cross platform standards
like XML are Good Things, and so on.

>As for another court, just remember that 19 state attorneys general are in
>on US v. Microsoft. That's a wolf pack even Chairman Bill will be panting to
>leave behind.
Yes, and these folks are just as dedicated to pursuing this matter as they 
ever were, perhaps more so.

Like I said, it ain't over 'til it's over! :)

                                                        Regards,
                                                        ---> RGB <---