But what's the simple explanation? That Microsoft is expecting DoJ and Jackson to go too far in the remedies phase? It's all going to be appealed forever, regardless. Do you think they're trying to get Jackson to get himself thrown out, and have a whole new trial? That could be, I don't know how that would work.
Again, the funny structure of this trial, with written direct testimony instead of live, tends to underplay what Microsoft meant to be its defense. Boies has gone for somewhat showy credibility attacks on the witnesses instead of plowing through the written direct testimony. That may be a mistake, I don't know how that will play out on appeal. It gets back to this whole "finding facts" things, which I still find a little vague. I assume, though, that the written direct would show the case Microsoft intended to make. I can't judge the merits of that case, of course. From what I've read it's one of these context dependent things, where Microsoft has lots of competition on the antitrust front, although the alleged competition is laughable on the investment front or any other.
Cheers, Dan. |
