JCJ, a more important question is what all this does for shareholders, and whether a single company is in the Microsoft shareholders best interest.
An expedited appeal is permitted when a particular case, such as this one, has important economic consequences. Why the Supreme Court favored the normal appeal process, by an appellate court that already has overturned earlier decisions against Microsoft by the lower court, is anybody's guess. The Court of Appeals is thought to be more favorable toward not breaking up Microsoft, as the trial court ruled. Microsoft argued against an expedited appeal, perhaps because it thought the longer appeals process under a Republican administration less concerned about anticompetitive behavior might leave the company in one piece.
The argument for this scenario, of course, hinges on whether the fast changing technology and the shift from PC to hand held, cell phone, set top and other devices for accessing data formerly available mainly through a PC has already made Judge Jackson's ruling unnecessary. Maybe so, but the facts that led to Jackson's ruling that Microsft violated the antitrust laws are not likely to be overturned by an appellate court. Microsoft, having opted to remain a monolith, has already turned down other markets, such as application software that runs on the competing Linux system. Its attempts to fashion a smaller scale version of Windows software that would work on hand held computers, set top TV boxes, and other appliances, so far have been unable to compete successfully with products such as the Palm operating system and embedded software sold by OPENTV, LIBERATE, and WIND RIVER SYSTEMS. There's ample evidence that two separate companies would be more profitable than one giant Microsoft. The Supreme Court, nevertheless, may have thought it more prudent not to cut the baby in two. But the Supreme Court is no Solomon, and Microsoft is no baby.
Art Bechhoefer |
