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: Charles Tutt who wrote (40397)	4/2/2000 6:05:00 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 74651

People keep harping on "Microsoft's record against this judge in the appeals courts;" aren't the problems he's had likely to make him especially careful to "cross his t's and dot his i's" in this case to make certain he's appeals-proof? Charles, I think he is dotting the i's and crossing the t's. It is obvious from his fact finding declaration. However applying the law to the case might cause him some problems. That is the only reason I could find for his trying to get a deal done with Posner's help. He had set up the government for a nice settlement--unfortunately it was too good! This thing is headed for an overturning at the appeals court. That I will bet on. Emotions and pride of judges at the lower levels (including appeals)can get in the way of rational decisions. I think that could happen with Jackson (and probably has) and the appeals court. Just look at the past decisions---every single one gets overturned. That may be the time we get a settlement when it gets appealed by DOJ/STates to the Surpreme Court.. MSFT may not want to chance it at that level and just settle for a harsh settlement. By then we could get new DOJ officials, State AGs.... (you get the idea).

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (40397)	4/3/2000 2:00:00 AM
From: Gerald Walls	Respond to of 74651

People keep harping on "Microsoft's record against this judge in the appeals courts;" aren't the problems he's had likely to make him especially careful to "cross his t's and dot his i's" in this case to make certain he's appeals-proof? That's why he's split his decision into multiple parts, so he won't get the whole thing thrown back at him, only part of it. IMHO, the entire case could have been skipped and the judgement entered when the judge basically defined Microsoft's market as the computers that have Windows installed on them. It's conceivable (but unlikely) that Microsoft can convince the appeals court that this was so grossly unfair and incorrect that it was impossible to mount an effective defense and the whole thing gets zapped.