----- Original Message -----
From: "ravi narayan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>could it be that (sinister tone) this whole thing is being orchestrated
>towards a result that will be gained outside the courts? after microsoft
>and gates present what many consider a weak defense (to the point of
>lacking credibility) and the govt (govts) put forth a very strong well
>reasoned set of charges, the judge acts in the craziest manner possible
>introducing an element of judicial conduct question into what should
>have ended a clean cut indictment of microsoft. rather suspicious!
The remedy was not set aside just because of the judges newspaper
interviews. It was put aside because he failed to hold a hearing on remedy
and because the Appeals Court did change liability standards on a few
points, sending them back for remand, that it may have changed the need for
the remedy proposed by the district court.
While Microsoft lost badly on the facts and law, they won enough that remand
was probably necessary in any case. Breakup was always an odd remedy for a
company that had not grown based on horizontal mergers.
Hopefully, the conduct remedies approved or negotiated will do enough to
restrain Microsoft and allow new innovations to eventually marginalize them.
I've argued in other places that we already won based on the MS lawsuit,
since Microsoft curtailed much of its worst behavior for fear of encouraging
worse judicial sanctions. The threat of antitrust action is probably more
useful than the remedy itself, which is why winning on the facts and the law
is far more important than winning on the specific remedy.
-- Nathan Newman
