Well, Dan, it's really hard to tell from a judge's questioing on the bench what he or she is thinking, and from these second-hand sources written by non-legal journalists, it's almost impossible to get a meaningful handle on how to read the tea-leaves.
What surprises me the most is that there was apparently no discussion of discovery. It may be that the topic was discussed and the jurnalists simply have overlooked reporting it, but if there was any discussion, I would have expected it to show up in the articles. I view the absence of such a discussion a postive for DOJ.
The one comment made by a DOJ official, apparently outside the hearing, was:
"We hope that the judge's rulings will indicate that there will be no need for further discovery," the Justice official said.
>Urowsky went on to say it wasn't that Microsoft's efforts could not be
>challenged, but that they would need to be challenged under the Sherman
>Antitrust Act.
I view this line and the Judge's questioning about whether DOJ can amend the complaint as positives for Microsoft. If they can amend the existing complaint or file a new one, why construe this consent decree to apply to IE/Windows bundling?
>Urowsky's replied that it would make no economic sense but, when pressed,
>said there was no technological barrier to doing so.
I view this line of questioning and the judge's comments about having an "intellectual problem" with the case as being positives for Microsoft. Maybe he's seeing the futility of this exercise.
I think an interesting question is: "When do two separate products sold together become an 'integrated product' within the meaning of the decree?"
Maybe the "intellectual problem" line was the judge's way of trying to come to grips with this problem.
Another comment I find significant is this one, reported by the New York Times:
At the same time, Justice Department attorney Phillip R. Malone said he believed an agreement on the dispute could be reached ''if the court would send us and Microsoft off to negotiate'' a resolution.
|
