Here's article from this morning (maybe it was already posted--haven't read through the 200 posts since last night yet)
It makes the very good point that other companies are "monopolies" such as Kodak; that is not illegal. Again, my take on this is similar to what I felt a few days ago. The judge has separated FOF from any ruling in order to 1) use the harshest language possible, thus satisfying himself and the DOJ and 2) in the end, probably NOT issue very punitive measures, as that would only screw up our economy. The thing is, if the stockholders/market want MSFT to settle and cave now, they'll show it on Monday by taking the stock down. I personally am pissed off and would rather see mymoney go sideways for another few months than see Gates settle, as I don't think he did anything other than what any business does every day. Anyway here's the article:
Q & A about the Microsoft trial
Last Update: 4:22 AM ET Nov 6, 1999 Also: Trial Story
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Common questions and answers about the Microsoft antitrust trial:
Q: My computer uses Microsoft Windows. How will this trial affect me?
Judgment vs. MicrosoftJudge sees monopolistic behavior
Money managers: 'Sit tight'
Excerpts of Jackson's ruling
Q&A: How it affects you
Venture capitalist toasts decision
Zapman: Let's fine 'em!
A chronology of the case
Discussion: What do you think?
A: The trial's outcome is unlikely to affect Microsoft (MSFT: news, msgs) customers immediately, since a product recall is not being considered. But the judge eventually could order Microsoft to change the way it designs Windows, such as requiring it to offer one version without an Internet browser, or requiring it to include rival software programs within Windows. In the most extreme case, which many experts consider unlikely, the judge could break up Microsoft into smaller companies that would compete against each other by selling different versions of software.
Q: How will the judge issue his ruling?
A: The judge decided on an unusual process. First, he issues his ``factual findings,' in which he decides some key questions. But he won't decide which antitrust laws Microsoft violated, if any, for possibly another month or more. And he won't decide whether or how Microsoft should be punished until later, possibly in the spring.
Q: Why did the judge split his ruling this way?
A: Legal experts believe the judge wants to encourage the sides to negotiate a settlement and avoid the risks of imposing punishment on one of the world's most successful companies, which is helping drive the booming economy surrounding the high-tech industry. The sides have met at least three times since the trial started but remain far apart on some central issues.
Q: If the judge declares Microsoft a monopoly, does that mean the company has done something illegal?
A: Federal laws don't prohibit a company from achieving monopoly power by selling popular products or making shrewd business decisions. Some major corporations _ including IBM, Xerox and Eastman Kodak _ all have been declared to be legal monopolies in certain markets. But it is illegal to achieve or sustain a monopoly through illegal practices, and for Microsoft to be labeled a monopolist is a distinction the government needs to prevail in its lawsuit. |
