Closing Arguments Underscore Gap Between Microsoft and Government nytimes.com
Microsoft Corp. got its last chance in federal court Tuesday to persuade the trial judge not to issue a stinging antitrust verdict against the company.
But the judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson, gave Microsoft little comfort. At one point in Tuesday's final arguments, he dismissed a key Microsoft defense by comparing the company to John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil monopoly, the subject of the first major antitrust case, in 1906, that resulted in a breakup of the company.
"I don't really see a distinction," Jackson said.
Ouch.
The government, in its final argument, said it was "simply impossible to imagine" that the company will not be found to have violated the nation's antitrust laws.
Microsoft, for its part, argued that it was impossible to see how the company could be found guilty. "A lot of nothing doesn't add up to something," said John Warden, the company's lead lawyer.
Well, there's the finding of facts, which Microsoft had to , er, work around. Then there will be the findings of law, which their closing argument doesn't seem likely to have much effect on. Oh, what the heck, maybe they should just call the judge stupid one more time for posterity. On second thought, I'm sure that will be happening a lot more than once in the months to come. Always a sound legal strategy, I say.
Then there's the issue of remedies. Can of worms there, no opinion from me.
Cheers, Dan. |
