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: t2 who wrote (19510)	4/1/1999 7:01:00 PM
From: RTev	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

He is saying stop the nonsense, to the states in particular, and just get on with a reasonable approach to this. That's an very optimistic view of the whole thing. A couple of factors though: Judges always urge settlement in civil trials. The system would fall apart if most of those cases didn't get settled out of the courtroom. Does Jackson's desire for a settlement mean that Microsoft won't have to face significant remedies? No. It's just as likely that Jackson is trying to say to Microsoft: "Make some kind of genuine concession, because if you don't then things will only get worse for you." By saying that he will rule first on the factual issues, Jackson tells both sides that they have to carefully consider the courtroom performance. That's not a good sign for Microsoft because it had a difficult time trying to tell its side of the story. Jackson would likely rule that the entire testimony of at least a few witnesses should be thrown out because of the doubt shed on their truthfulness by inept testimony in cross-examination. (That's a major reason for cross, after all.) Are the states being unreasonable in asking for structural changes? I see nothing to idicate that Jackson is poorly disposed toward such remedies, especially because he knows at least part of the history of Microsoft's approach to its monopoly markets. The states and DOJ said almost nothing about possible remedies before the trial started. The injunction concerning IE and Win98 was the exception. They were otherwise quiet about it, and are being close-lipped once again. Have they decided on more stringent remedies because of Microsoft's trial performance? Probably. They'd be foolish not to. The DOJ and states and Jackson are aware of what happened with the '95 consent decree. In that one, Microsoft agreed to change some old and already outmoded licensing procedures. That's what they've agreed to do again. The problem is that new charges of antitrust violations came up almost as soon as the consent decree was signed. Now they're back in court. The plaintiffs are unlikely to let that happen again, and I suspect that Jackson would understand their reluctance. And again about the Appeals Court. I don't think Jackson cares. He's been overturned dozens of times. He will be again. My guess is that he's enough of a lawyer to consider the appellate judges who rule against him as fools who don't understand the law, but managed to get themselves into a nice job. If, in the end, he has to make a decision and looks at the facts and the law and determines that Microsoft is liable, then that's what he'll rule -- Appeals Court be damned. After all, even if he rules in favor of Microsoft, the case would probably be appealed. There is always the chance that instead of the lucky draw Microsoft has gotten in recent circuit benches that they'd draw two or three of the more anti-trust friendly judges who would then overturn a pro-MS ruling and send it back to Jackson (which is not something he wants to see).