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: Thunder who wrote (46376)	6/10/2000 2:42:00 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 74651

Microsoft May Cite Judge's Public Remarks in Antitrust Appeal Before the article, Gary....While I think that Microsoft was possibly more aggressive than they should have been...breaking them up is totally bizarre...IMO...I totally agree with you: Due to the fact that we reap what we sow, you will someday thank Microsoft and their efforts, for what they have courageously defended with great cost. Freedom. KLP quote.bloomberg.com Microsoft May Cite Judge's Public Remarks in Antitrust Appeal By James Rowley Washington, June 9 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. said it may cite remarks to reporters by the judge who ordered the software giant's breakup to show he was biased and improperly relied on facts extraneous to the government's antitrust case. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson granted a series of interviews that are extraordinary for a judge sitting on a pending case. In one instance, he was quoted saying he has ``been astounded'' by statements of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer that the company had done nothing wrong. ``Microsoft insists that it is innocent of any wrongdoing at all and will continue to do business as they have been doing it,'' the judge told the Wall Street Journal. ``There is considerable danger that they are continuing to do business the way they have been, and it is time to get some restraint in place.'' The interviews were published after Jackson issued his order on Wednesday splitting the company in two. The remarks could be cited as evidence that Jackson improperly took into account the company's assertion of innocence and the exercise of its legal rights in ordering the breakup, said Paul Rothstein, a Georgetown University law professor who is a legal consultant to Microsoft. ``That type of thing is certainly under consideration,'' by company lawyers drafting briefs for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, said Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan. Next week, the company plans to file its notice of appeal and a motion for an emergency stay of sweeping restrictions on its business practices set to take effect in 90 days, Rothstein said. Cullinan declined to comment on the public statements by the judge, who also gave interviews to the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and National Public Radio. Settlement Urged The spokesman's comments came even after Ballmer repeated the company's stated interest in settling the case. ``We still have that opportunity and we welcome that opportunity,'' Ballmer said at the European Business Summit in Brussels. Although both sides have paid lip service to the idea of a settlement, no talks are scheduled. Shares of Microsoft were unchanged at 68 13/16 on the Nasdaq Stock Market. Jackson's news interviews, coupled with passages from the six- page opinion accompanying the breakup order, contain evidence of `improper, non-judicial considerations motivating the decision,'' including a ``clash of personalities'' between the judge and Microsoft, Rothstein said. He cited Jackson's statement in the opinion that Microsoft is ``unstrustworthy'' and the judge's remarks to reporters that he didn't find company witnesses truthful. ``I have seen a lot of judicial opinions in my time and almost never have seen statements of judges taking such a personal swipe at a company or person or litigants before them,'' Rothstein said. Jackson's comments also suggest he gave improper weight to Microsoft's failure to reach an out-of-court settlement and the company's insistence on appealing, Rothstein said. ``He seems to be holding against them that they are insisting on their right of appeal, that they didn't settle'' the case, Rothstein said. Legal experts say Jackson's off-the-bench remarks undermine the perception of his judicial objectivity and give Microsoft ammunition that it was treated unfairly. `Most Valuable Commodity' ``A judge's most valuable commodity is the perception of his objectivity,'' said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert at New York University law school. ``By speaking off the bench, he becomes part of the brawl.'' Even if Jackson's remarks don't provide a basis for overturning the verdict, they will hurt his credibility with appellate judges because `` a number of these comments will strike them as unwise,'' said William Kovacic, an antitrust expert who teaches at George Washington University. ``At a minimum, it has to strike the reviewing courts as being ill considered and will raise questions about his judgment'' in general, he said. For his part, Jackson defended the interviews, telling National Public Radio: ``It is important that the public understand I am not simply the Wizard of Oz. Some of the questions that are clearly in the minds of the public are being answered from my perspective.'' The interviews are over, a spokeswoman for Jackson said. He took today off and next week he will begin presiding at a trial and won't be available to speak to reporters, she said.

To: Thunder who wrote (46376)	6/11/2000 2:20:00 AM
From: Kashish King	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Just think: How much more it could have cost, as well as lost if not contended. Well, I assume you mean "contested" and I'm thinking about it... Having thought about it, they would have lost several billion, versus several hundred billion. Do you really have an appreciate of how much money that is? Do you really believe that had Microsoft settled and agreed to stop violating anti-trust laws in the future that they would have lost more than $200 billion? If that works for you then fine, I prefer to think rationally and draw rational conclusions, but that's just me.