Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Milan Shah who wrote (35119)	12/6/1999 5:22:00 PM
From: pagejack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I will do my best to respond but this is only my opinion. This is especially true when it gets down to the individual level. I don't know anyone at the anti-trust division at DOJ and certainly no one on the gov't's trial team. >What, in your opinion, is the DOJ really after? Can you >give us an opinion that factors in the ego's of the people >involved from the DOJ and other political motivations? I have no opinion about the egos of the trial lawyers on either side. However, you don't succeed as a trial lawyer if you aren't confident. I would bet that the courtroom was full of large egos on both sides of the aisle. As for what DOJ "is" really after - I don't know what they are after now. Perhaps part of the mystery of the present settlement negotiations is that the DOJ truly doesn't know what they want. As to why the gov't. brought the action initially? That's easy and is similar to any civil action filed by a government attorney- DOJ wanted MSFT to stop its behavior (perceived as illegal) and MSFT had not done so. I also believe that the gov't. won at the trial level on a much bigger scale than they had anticipated. So the cost of settlement to MSFT has undoubtably gone up from what it could have gotten prior to trial. >2. It may be difficult to overturn a FOF, but is it >impossible? What would it take to overturn the FOF? For >example, is it possible to overturn the FOF definition of >the market for PC operating systems? How about the "fact" >that Microsoft has caused "clear and discernible harm" The legal standard is "substantial evidence". I can't give you a crisp legal definition of that term off the top of my head (I was a trial lawyer -not an appellate lawyer) but it basically means that there must be some evidence in the record to support the judge's finding. That is, the gov't must have offered some evidence on that point which, if believed, supports the fact stated by the court. If the Gov't. offered testimony, expert or otherwise, or documents supporting the judge's finding, then it will be difficult for MSFT to overturn that fact. Remember, courts of appeals don't want to generate more work for themselves and they typically uphold findings of fact. The appellate lawyers in my department consider a "lack of substantial evidence" a weak argument for deciding to appeal a decision. Success is not usually in the cards. As I said in my earlier post, an appeal is not another bite at the apple, and MSFT must now win, if they can, on the law alone.