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 (57623)	4/25/2001 1:08:28 PM
From: Thunder	Respond to of 74651

Maybe it all depends on what his definition of 'thrown out' is. When I see 'thrown out' in the context of the article, I tend to think of reversal. When I see 'thrown back' I tend to think along the lines of a remand (for correction or retrial etc.). But, like many quoting-articles (including this one where 'thrown out' was not directly stated by him), it's usually taken out of context - and creates a lot of confusion sometimes (at least for me). :) Thunder

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (57623)	4/25/2001 2:51:25 PM
From: sandeep	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Charles, even such an appeals court decision of msft not having got a fair trial with judge jackson should shut up critics who jumped on the "microsoft has been found guilty of having committed crimes etc etc bandwagon". I thought you were on this bandwagon, weren't you ?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (57623)	4/26/2001 6:13:14 PM
From: t2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

If the Appeals Court reverses because it concludes Microsoft didn't get a fair trial, that doesn't necessarily vindicate them as a defendant -- it just means the result of a fair trial is unknown. It just means there will be a settlement on much better terms to Microsoft than what was discussed in the settlement talks before they broke down. At least the DOJ would not have very strong demands. The States may be tougher but don't count on some of them (California for example) to pay the legal fees to fight another round with a very uncertain result. They blew it by not going along with the DOJ and reducing some of their demands. The case would have over with a government victory. If MSFT wins, it is over with a settlement that does not hurt MSFT much---especially if the Appeals Court rules that Jackson was wrong to ignore their overturning of his Windows95 ruling and failign to use it as a precedent for the Windows98 case. I am pretty sure that is one of the reasons the Appeals Courts judges are ticked off. A second reason is for Jackson's public criticisms of a HIGHER COURT. I bet they did not like that. A third reason is that he tried to push the case right to the Supreme Court so that the Appeals Court does not shoot his ruling down again. Seriously, this case is DOA in Appeals. Those judges are human ....lets face that fact, just like Jackson. Jackson was ticked off at Microsoft and Appeals Court judges are ticked off at Jackson. Jackson ruling to break up the company is a clear sign of his bias....and the appeals court's ruling will be a clear sign of their bias against him. Remember that the breakup and fact findings before that were so one sided that one would find it hard to believe Jackson was not out to get Microsoft. His big mistake was that he put down the Appeals Court so much....and his biggest mistake was that he somehow thought he was GOD.<g>