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: Captain Jack who wrote (41287)	4/5/2000 6:05:00 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

CJ: You done broke the code. I knew the law was an ass but I am surprised to find it came wrapped in a black robe this time. JFD

To: Captain Jack who wrote (41287)	4/5/2000 7:00:00 PM
From: Valley Girl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Unquestionably he's just trying to bypass the appellate court where he knows they'll chip away at his findings. He's making the right cover noises about fast-tracking the case knowing that it's unlikely the supreme court would even grant cert. Having said that, it still seems that the case will not simply be thrown out on appeal. It's far too late for that since the "facts" can't really be legally disputed, can they? Only errors in applying the law or in the handling of the case, and the judge's conduct isn't sufficiently over the top to provide a basis for dismissal. The best MSFT can hope for is a reduced finding of violation and a remedy that is short of a corporate break-up. But even in that best-case scenario the private suits will go forward. Without a complete reversal, those earlier rulings are like chum in the water. It seems incredible to me, but to all appearances the system gives near-absolute power to one man here. Why couldn't MSFT have gotten a jury trial instead? I hear some of the OJ jurors were available.