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: Russ who wrote (45436)	5/26/2000 2:31:00 PM
From: Insitu	Respond to of 74651

Sorry, John F. Dowd. Russ is correct. There are 10 appellate judges on the D.C. Circuit, all appointed for life. There is a 1 in 120 chance of getting the same panel. The chances of winning on appeal are much, much slimmer than the majority of posts seem to think. Issues like credibility of witnesses are not reviewable at all. If TPJ concluded that Mr. Bill lied under oath (in the deposition that was read into evidence) then his pro-MSFT testimony can be completely ignored. If TPJ concluded that Jim Allchin rigged his demonstration, his testimony can be ignored. If you wipe out the testimony of any witness who the judge believed was not credible, what's left. The appellate panel will asses TPJ's rulings based on the unreviewable "facts" as determined by TPJ. The chance or a victory is much less than 50% with a different panel applying this standard. There is still time to cut a deal. Hello Bill. Are you listening?

To: Russ who wrote (45436)	5/26/2000 2:31:00 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

"You can pick 3 judges (out of 10) a whole bunch of ways. You can construct 120 different panels. The odds are 1 in 120 MS will get the same 3 judges" Very impressive. 3/102/91/8 right? WOW, my head hurts! :)) The selection of the panel in the D.C. circuit is normally done randomly by computer. I don't know if it runs Windows, but maybe Bill tied the operating system to the browser so that he could send the computer a "message". :)) I'm guessing, but there is no law which requires this selection process, and I believe the court could do what ever it wants. Judge Laurence Silberman, appointed by Reagan, wrote the opinion in "Microsoft One" which held that Judge Stanley Sporkin had overstepped his bounds by rejecting the settlement reached by the DOJ and MS in 1995 and ordered that Judge Sporkin be removed from the case and another Judge appointed. Judge Stephen Williams wrote the opinion in "Microsoft Two" which overruled Judge Jackson in 1998. It was Judge Jackson who criticized and disagreed with Appellate Judge Williams' opinion (sic!) in the present case and so stated in his opinion on his findings of fact. One of the problems now is that Judge Williams' opinion was BRILLIANT, not because it was favourable to MS in the short run, but because it showed an understanding of the anti-trust law as it applied to software (and possibly all intellectual property issues) from a well reasoned Judicial perspective. It was neither political (as the Legislative Branch might want) nor social (as the Executive Branch might be in favor of) and relied not one wit on the social engineering that is being propounded by academia, most notably the Aveeda Treatise (or is that the Velveeta Treatise?) IN FACT IT REJECTED BOTH THE DOJ AND MICROSOFT ATTORNEYS PROFFER OF THE LAW. It would be appropriate to assign Both these judges to the appeal, not because of any imagined bias, but because there are now two issues that have to be resolved, the Microsoft issue AND what I believe is called the "Erie Doctrine" which requires a DC to follow the interpretation of law by the appellate court in its jurisdiction. This does not mean some sort of automatic win for Microsoft. I do not know what would be the result. I do believe that this would be an "automatic win" for the Rule of Law, in this country. Duke