RE: Microsoft trial
The Federal government has no special privilege in a civil (or criminal trial). In this case it is Microsoft that is the "We the People" for whom the judicial rights are crafted, and the Federal government is the central government against whom the rights are projected. The judge, screwy as he seems, has a life appointment to protect him against being coerced by the government.
We the people did not grant Gates a business license. At worst, the IRS gave him a tax number, and the state sold him a nondiscretionary corporate charter, and the city a permit. He has no obligation to tell us anything, unless it is evidence in a legal proceeding, and even here he is protected against self incrimination.
The witness giving a deposition is required to answer questions under oath or affirmation that can be connected to the facts of the case or lead to discovery of relevant evidence. His obligations are to answer simple (not compound) questions, but only the questions that are actually asked, not to deliver learned essays that purport to answer a whole series of questions. There are many jokes that describe the consequences of a witness talking too much or lawyers asking too many questions once his question is answered.
I don't think Microsoft should settle. There is no federal law against disadvantaging the competition, or causing a competitor to lose profits or lose market share as long as there is a sound business advantage for the firm. These are ancillary restraints of trade and may or may not be illegal under the rule of reason. The court will have to puzzle out the rightness or wrongness of Microsoft's acts from opinions in prior cases. If Microsoft can show that they believed the acts were motivated by their own desire for profits and survival, and not by the attempt to destroy their competition or gain (or maintain) a monopoly. That their competitor was injured or even destroyed (which it wasn't) is not illegal, unless the monopolist actually attempted to achieve that end. The proof of such wrong-doing must be based on all of the evidence, and not mere on snippets of e-mail. The antirust laws as interpreted by this Supreme Court allow robust and vigorous competition and are intended to protect consumers, not competitors. |
