Harvey, did you read the links at the bottom of that article? I missed them the first time around, a good read. Apparently the Judge found one set of amicus briefs to be a good read too. The other set, well, Microsoft must be free to "innovate" on the legal front too. Whining as a legal defense (or whinging as they say in Registerland (or should that be "whingeing"?(sub sub parenthetically, SI's speller says yes to "whingeing"))) is certainly good for entertainment, anyway.
Monopoly, predation' - trade body brief foams at MS theregister.co.uk
Lead in:
In some ways it's a surprise that the amicus brief for the DoJ was written by the
Software and Information Association Industry Association, but perhaps the DoJ knew
that the Association for Competitive Technology was being invited by Microsoft to do
its Amicus. Certainly, "the world's largest trade association representing the interests
of firms in the software, information and Internet industry" stacks up well against the
ACT, which it says was "founded in 1998 specifically to oppose the enforcement of
the antitrust laws against Microsoft". Nor does the SSIA "screen prospective
members to ensure a uniform point of view", as the brief says.
Thrilling conclusion:
An interesting precedent is cited that apparently shows that: "Monopolisation may be
proved even when there is no evidence 'that prices are raised and that competition
actually is excluded' so long as there is proof 'that power exists to raise prices or to
exclude competition when it is desired to do so'. The maintenance of a monopoly
through exclusionary activity is presumed to cause consumer harm by artificially
depriving consumers of the benefits of competition. That is something Microsoft surely
did, by prolonging and reinforcing its monopoly through a broad array of
anticompetitive acts." The SIIA fear is evidently that the antitrust courts might "avert
their eyes from its anticompetitive practices to avoid inflicting harm on a smoothly
running industry." ©
A longer, more entertaining read:
Liberate OEMs, open Windows APIs, says MS critic
Reback theregister.co.uk
Entertaining bit:
Gary Reback of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati has proved himself to be a
formidable legal opponent of Microsoft on several previous occasions. He noted that
there was concern amongst Microsoft acolytes that Microsoft had done such a poor
job of presenting its case. Reback's response was: "That's the truth: that what you see
in court is the true Microsoft ... There's no surprise about that." Reback thought that the
best remedy would be one that did not require judicial monitoring. It was widely
admitted that the DoJ did not do a good job of monitoring, since it is not a regulatory
agency, but is a law enforcement group. Consequently, monitoring consent decrees is
not high on its agenda.
The business conduct remedy ("thou shalt not ...") would bring all manner of problems,
Reback considered. "Thou shalt not bundle" would not work, he said, noting that the
same week Microsoft claimed to be having settlement talks with the DoJ, it
announced it would bundle its media player with Windows. If the remedy does not
address such issues, what is the point of the trial, he asked.
The other story of the day from the Register wags:
The Beast whinges theregister.co.uk
Keeping it brief this time:
The most important company in human history had been denied due process, Microsoft lawyers cried.
"Human history"? Try "history of the known universe" I say, just for old time's sake again.
Cheers, Dan. |
