[QUOTE=John Mace]
Eh. One man’s “technicality” is another man’s potential miscarriage of justice. And the issue at hand was the bundling of IE with other MSFT products, not whether to break up the company. Bottom line… MSFT is still MSFT.
[/QUOTE]
Hogwash. The issue at hand was whether Microsoft used its market domination to stifle healthy competition.
The judge talked to the press in a manner that violated judicial rules of conduct, but in which the appellate court found no actual bias. In their decision to overturn the ruling of Jackson’s court, they stated:
[QUOTE=p. 123 ff.]
The Federal Rules require that district court findings of
fact not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a). Ordinarily, there is no basis for
doubting that the District Court’s factual findings are entitled
to the substantial deference the clearly erroneous standard
entails. But of course this is no ordinary case. Deference to
a district court’s factfindings presumes impartiality on the
lower court’s part. When impartiality is called into question,
how much deference is due?
The question implies that there is some middle ground, but
we believe there is none. As the rules are written, district
court factfindings receive either full deference under the
clearly erroneous standard or they must be vacated.
<snip>
When there is fair room for argument that the District
Court’s factfindings should be vacated in toto, the court of
appeals should be especially careful in determining that the
findings are worthy of the deference Rule 52(a) prescribes. <case law citation removed> Thus,
although Microsoft alleged only appearance of bias, not actual
bias, we have reviewed the record with painstaking care and
have discerned no evidence of actual bias. <case law citations removed>
In light of this conclusion, the District Judge’s factual
findings both warrant deference under the clear error standard
of review and, though exceedingly sparing in citations to
the record, permit meaningful appellate review.
<snip>
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded in part. We vacate in full the
Final Judgment embodying the remedial order, and remand
the case to the District Court for reassignment to a different
trial judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Translation:
Dear Microsoft-
None of the terrible things Judge Jackson said about your company, either in the press or in his decision, can be shown to be untrue or indicative that he had it in for you, but since he said some of them at times and places where judgely rules specifically said he’s not supposed to, we have to give you a pass on this one.
-Love, The DC Appellate court
If that’s not a technicality, then there’s no such thing.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, that’s your opinion. I can just as easily say that Ashscroft decided to drop it because the case had no merit.
[/QUOTE]
Where, in the appellate decision which upheld the lower court’s findings of fact in the case, or anywhere else, is this alleged lack of merit clearly seen?
