Given your credentials as a government lawyer, can you please shed some light on the following two issues that I have been thinking about?
1. What, in your opinion, is the DOJ really after? Can you give us an opinion that factors in the ego's of the people involved from the DOJ and other political motivations? Sometimes, I arrive at defeatist conclusions like "Joel Klein is simply out to draw blood and go down in history as the guy that brought down Microsoft", or "Joel Klein wants to be the lawyer that forced a re-evaluation of the Anti-trust Act". Both of these indicate that, no matter what Microsoft does, the DOJ will refuse to settle - the very thing they are after is to force a trial and conclusions of law, so that it can instigate a re-evaluation of the law in this respect.
2. It may be difficult to overturn a FOF, but is it impossible? What would it take to overturn the FOF? For example, is it possible to overturn the FOF definition of the market for PC operating systems? How about the "fact" that Microsoft has caused "clear and discernible harm" - surely a clever lawyer can establish that this is up for debate? My point is that if it is difficult, then Microsoft probably has the resources and werewithal to try it. If its impossible, then of course, there's nothing Microsoft can do. |
