I'm going to defend the lawyers for a few minutes. I was in that business a long time and married to one.
First, the decision to demand a jury trial is made by the client, not the attorneys. They can only advise a course of action based on their experience with the judge in question and juries in the type of case at hand. Jury trials are highly dangerous for defendants. Antitrust/anticompetitive law/issues and their nuances are difficult for the average person to understand. Juries can be influenced by emotional appeals or charismatic attorneys or witnesses. A judge, on the other hand, knows the law and precedents and can make rulings based on them. A judge may appear biased on the surface to a party who is not doing well in the trial (although I doubt most competent federal judges would appear so) but he knows his rulings will be reviewed by a court of appeals and I doubt that many want to be professionally embarrassed by having key rulings overturned in a high profile trial like this one.
With regard to the comment that most people do not like the government, that may be true, but a persuasive argument might be made to a jury that Microsoft, through its actions, is preventing the jurors from having free choice in their own lives for the purpose of profiting itself. I don't think it would be too hard for a skilled litigator to build resentment toward the company in the minds of jurors and for the government to appear to be the "good cop" trying to defend the little guy.
If the outcome is unfavorable, i.e.; the remedies ordered by the court are unpalatable to Microsoft, of course they will appeal. If they argue that the judge is biased, they'll have to present pretty darn good evidence of that. More likely, they'd appeal on the grounds of admissibility of evidence, expert testimony and such.
All FWIW and stream of consciousness. And, BTW, I'm long MSFT. |
