Bearded One,
I agree with you broadly, but I think that some of your arguments are based on faulty premises. While it is clear, as you point out, that Jackson's rulings on the facts means that MSFT is going to lose some of those points, I think it's also clear that Jackson's intention is to get both sides to settle. He doesn't want to rule on this case, and if he's forced to, he wants to ensure that this ruling, which will likely define his career, is beyond reproach. So he goes this route, intending to upset both sides with his findings of fact, pushing them towards settlement, and if that fails, he's set the stage for their arguments to be tailored towards HIS VIEW of the facts, going a long way towards helping his ruling withstand withering legal analysis in the media at least, and an appeals process at best.
I also disagree that there is no winning on points. Especially given the media spin of events, most of the public expects MSFT to lose at this point. A ruling that strikes a blow to the DOJ's case on any significant level is going to therefore be reported as a win for MSFT. The key of course, is in the remedies.
3) The correct thing to do when you lose a big case is to blame your lawyer
100% agreed!
Shea |
