The Court held that MS is a monopoly. But in the limited area of intel processors.
Right. That's exactly what Judge Jackson said, and the Appeals Court agreed.
What a new law suit by a private party will have to establish is damage to the consumer.
Again, Judge Jackson already ruled that MSFT's monopoly abuses have harmed consumers, and the Appeals Court agreed.
What is amazing is the number of people, lawyers included, who did not know the law before pontificating on how bad this decision is for MS.
What are you talking about?
It is very pro ms.
If you thought that MSFT was really going to be broken up, then this ruling is good news. Otherwise, it's pretty damning. The other positive for MSFT (however negative for capitalism, free markets, and technology) is that MSFT was absolved of illegally pursuing a monopolistic "course of conduct as a whole," which could have been lethal to MSFT had it been upheld. It was this sweeping charge that justified the breakup. With it off the table, breakup is too broad a remedy.
But the Appeals Court did uphold many of MSFT's abuses, one after another brushing aside MSFT's defenses as "lame," "frivolous," and "irrelevant" (their words, not mine).
Dave |
