Gerald, this brings up a question I've wanted to ask. It seems there are two issues at hand, what the consent decree actually means and whether Microsoft is in violation. In terms of the second question, I understand that a certain standard of proof may need to be met before penalties may be imposed. But for the first question, what the decree actually means, it seems to be a question of interpretation, not proof. Presumably, the two sides state what they think it means, and the judge decides, right? Maybe the decree gets amended with clarifications, I don't know, but Microsoft doesn't just get to argue that they're not in violation of their interpretation do they?
My wife had a couple semesters of Civil Procedure, but she thinks I'm obsessed, and doesn't want to encourage me.
Cheers, Dan. |
