"After findings of law, damaged parties can sue MSFT. That's why delaying tactics will not work. MSFT will have to place money in reserve if they would lose these lawsuits ($Billions)."
"I would like to know if that is really a true statement.
I mean, if company A is found guilty and appeals, do people have the right to sue the company based on the guilty verdict or do they have to wait until the appeals have been done? It seems kind of crazy to be tried as guilty when you may actually be judged innocent."
It is a true statement that companies can indeed bring similar cases based on the findings of fact after the conclusions of law get entered. A legal case is X + Y =Z. With the findings of fact, X and Y are already established in the findings of fact. So, if you bring a case that says W + X + Y = Z' (and X and Y are already established as a matter of law), the you just have to prove W and you get Z'. MSFT cannot relitigate X and Y. The new plaintiffs don't have to bear the expense of proving X and Y.
If the decision is overturned on appeal, my understanding is that the court might still let the findings of fact stand so that X and Y would be proven as a matter of law.
Nothing unfair about it. Microsoft had a full, complete opportunity to litigate the findings in the trial with the DOJ and every incentive to do a good job. Why should courts waste time with established facts?
The big risk to MSFT is that it "wins" on appeal, the appellate court indeed trims back the remedies imposed by Judge Jackson, but the appellate court does not need to disturb the findings of fact in order to reach its ruling. The findings of fact--or many of them--would remain, and MSFT would then be consumed in litigation for years. MSFT almost needs to win on everything on appeal to have the findings of fact set aside.
Example. FF said MSFT is a monopoly and had engaged in anticompetitive conduct. Conclusions of law may say that MSFT violated antitrust laws. Remedy may be that MSFT cannot do g, f, h, i, j, and MSFT must do L, M, N, and O.
Appellate court trims back the remedy to say that only barred from doing g, f, and j (can do h and i) and only has to do M and N (not L, not 0). Microsoft "wins" because appeals court trims the lower courts ruling, but the FF stand because they are needed to support the modified appeals court ruling. Private plaintiffs have turbocharged lawsuits because they don't have to prove the FF Jackson issued against MSFT. |
