And the winner is... mercurycenter.com
Meanwhile, a return for the moment to our regularly scheduled coverage. Rich Gray is not totally impressed by the government's case at this point, despite rather than because of Microsoft's awesome defense, of course. Perhaps you could comment on this bit at the end.
The government could lose on each of these three individual claims, which are brought under section 1 of the Sherman Act, and still win.
The government argues, and Judge Jackson agrees, that even if it can't win all or any of these section 1 claims, the evidence on each of these issues can still be relied on by Judge Jackson to support a finding that Microsoft has engaged in illegal maintenance of its operating system monopoly under section 2 of the Sherman Act. As Judge Jackson put it, "a monopolist's conduct that does not rise to the level of a section 1 violation may nevertheless violate section 2 if it "impair[s] competition in an unnecessarily restrictive way."
The evidence that Microsoft feared Netscape's browser technology as a potential threat to Windows is powerful support for the argument that Microsoft's efforts in the browser area were undertaken, at least in part, to protect Windows.
At this stage, while it appears that Microsoft will probably win some key battles, it is likely that it will lose the war. The key remaining -- and still very much open -- question is what punishment will be imposed on Microsoft as a result.
Also from Gray in the SJmercury:
Hot Button: If I were Microsoft's attorney mercurycenter.com
I'd just want to roll over and die? Not exactly, Gray is fairly sanguine about Microsoft's case, despite the miscues. As were the pieces I posted from the NYT this weekend, www2.techstocks.com and nytimes.com .
Cheers, Dan.
P.S. sorry for the unscheduled interruption with the esteemed Mr. Vaughn. I thought I walked away from the political cesspool, but to paraphrase the old Doors song, nobody gets out of there alive. I apologize for following Mr. Vaughn onto this thread. |
