If we all took this attitude, then being found guilty of anything would simply be "round one".
GST - filing for an appeal is part of the legal process. Murderers are not executed until all their appeals are exhausted. Personally, I'm not ready to come to a conclusion on this case until after the appeal - you may have reached a conclusion already - and I can tell you for certain that many people had reached a conclusion at the stage of indictment. If Microsoft wins on appeal, then everything you are saying about the company's guilt is irrelevant. Yes, the company has been found guilty by Judge Jackson - but the law says they can file for appeal - the legal process is not yet done. Do you expect everyone at this point to say "It's done, they're guilty, off to the gallows!" What's wrong with saying, "Okay, Jackson found them guilty, but there's still the appeal - so let's wait and see what happens on the appeal before we nail the coffin shut."
There are usually two aspects: you lose the money you made illegally and you are forced to cease the behavior. If you do not acknowledge the behavior, "structural" remedies are appropriate.
In the absence of any supporting data to back up your argument, I can only assume that your reasoning here is from seat of your pants. Whether or not a structural remedy, even a structural remedy as severe as breaking up the company, is warranted is really dependent on law and precedent. You've mentioned neither in supporting your position. Courts don't dole out punishment at whim. It's like saying "Gates stole money - cut off the scoundrel's hands and stone him!" It would be great if you have something in law or precedent to back up the remedy you propose. Otherwise I'm led to believe that your desire to see the company broken up arises from an extreme dislike of the company and speculation on remedy precedent.
Gates and company CANNOT bring themselves to admit they have behaved like thugs and crooks -- this is about ego and power. Worse still, it is incompetent representation.
I don't imagine MSFT shareholders consider Gates & co behaved like thugs and crooks. And what CEO doesn't have a big ego (I'm a CEO - and believe me, my ego is big - really big). You're speculating on what was offered by the DOJ regarding settlement - and the data upon which advice was provided by Microsoft lawyers. Do you think Gates received concrete data that his lack of settlement would destroy his company - and then chose not to settle because of ego? If so, I think you're smokin' something.
I mention this because it is the "principal" MSFT execs have claimed from the beginning as the cornerstone of their case -- "we reserve the right to innovate"
So - again, what is your point here? Are you saying that Microsoft's argument on this point is invalid because the company is generally not innovative? Not only is it nonsense, but the logic is a bit weak. Perhaps, I don't understand what you mean - so, please elaborate.
GST - don't take my comments personally (I'm being a bit facetious today - and my words may appear to be a bit harsh). But when I hear people shouting "Break them up! Break them up!" I'm inclined to step back and say "Now, wait a second. Before we, as a mob, immerse Microsoft execs in vats of boiling oil, let's consider the legal process for deciding on remedy. While I am not intimately familiar with the process, I believe it involves the judge weighing points of law, listening to recommendations from those involved in the case, and reviewing precedent (it is these types of processes that make us think that we have somehow evolved from the Middle Ages). Then after a decision is made on remedy, the defendant has a right to file for an appeal. But if the appeal is denied, or if the appeal is granted, but the defendant loses on appeal - well, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!"
-Eric |
