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: Brian Sullivan who wrote (56289)	2/27/2001 1:10:26 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Be careful not to hatchet your Counts before they chicken. It does seem pretty certain that if this case is remanded, it will not be to Judge Jackson. There would then be no argument that he reached his opinions after the case concluded. The "easy" way out might be for this Court to hold that the remedy should be revisited by another Judge. BUT, if they don't find against the "presumption" that the DOJ once it gets a determination of monopoly, can dictate the remedy, the same result may be the same upon remand.

To: Brian Sullivan who wrote (56289)	2/27/2001 1:29:21 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Respond to of 74651

I did get a connection working, thanks to the kind help of David Freidenberg. It was clear in today's hearing that the court was upset with Judge Jackson over his statements to the press. However, that doesn't necessarily mean his ruling will be reversed, IMHO. Arguments against reversal include the possibility that his opinions were the result of the trial, rather than of any bias, and that he hasn't had an opportunity to defend himself, since there was no evidentiary hearing on the question (e.g. suppose the reporter(s) embellished what was said, or stripped it of exculpatory context). I'm not prepared to predict the outcome. I doubt David Boies would have a pained expression on his face -- surely he has better control than that. JMHO, and not a legal opinion. Charles Tutt (TM)