http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57869-2001Jun28.html
So, for now, no breakup. Because the judge allowed himself to be “biased against Microsoft”.
FIND ME SOMEONE WHO’S USED WINDOWS FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR AND ISN’T BIASED AGAINST THEM!
Accuracy of the judicial process compromised, my ass. Just like bringing in the Supremes to adjudicate a election isn’t compromising jurisprudence.
Off to go have a few beers and ruminate upon joining the Luddite army…
I dunno…judicial bias can be a big deal. The idea is that the judge should be impartial. I mean, lets say you’re walking your dog, and Fluffy does his business on my rose bushes, so I sue you for the cost of the bushes. If when we go to court, the judge says, at the beginning of the trial, “Personally, I hate dogs and their owners! I think anyone who owns a dog should be shot!”, then you’d probably be nervous about the outcome of the case.
For some reason I keep getting the same Simpsons bit in my head whenever I hear about this:
Police Chief getting large bag of cash in witness stand: “Oh, good. My, ehm, laundry is done. ‘psst, in the future, I would prefer a briefcase instead of a large bag with a dollar sign on it!’”
Not to say I’m implying anything. At all. Not me. 
— G. Raven
I’m not sure what the complaint is, here.
The Appellate Court substantially agreed with the verdict. They found that Microsoft had engaged in monopolistic and anti-competitive practices.
The only thing they really rejected was the sentence. Why? Because the idiot judge had private meetings with the people who had pressed to have the suit brought and had expressed his contempt for Microsoft outside the court and before the verdict was reached. The Appeals Court found that the judge had so far overstepped his bounds in expressing personal prejudice, that his sentence appeared to have been handed down vindictively rather than judiciously.
Let me repeat, in case you did not read the actual decision:
The verdict is unchanged: Microsoft stands convicted of monopolistic and anti-competitive practices.
The only change is that the sentence will be handed to a new judge for a second view.
I remember that this was mentioned in one of the Dubya knocking threads during the recounts.
Trees would be chopped down, oilfields expanded, Kyoto agreement disagreed, Microsoft gets its own way.
Maybe babies will be on the menu soon.
tomndebb, I don’t think that is entirely accurate. As minty green point out in this thread, the court ruled that “we reverse the District Court’s determination Microsoft violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by illegally attempting to monopolize the internet browser market; and we remand the District Court’s finding that Microsoft violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its browser to its operating system.” So “yes” to the OS monopoly, “no” to illegally tying IE to the OS or trying to monopolize browsers. The court rejected far more than just the sentence.
I am not the least bit biased against Microsoft. Do I win a prize?
Yes! Here you go, your very own copy of Windows 2000 and every single program that refuses to function properly with it!
— G. Raven
I’ve used Windows for many years and I’m not biased against them. I think the Microsoft has provided a product that is fairly easy to use. Most people who bad mouth Windows are either computer nerds or Mac users.
Marc
I’ve also found that people who complain about Windows crashing suddenly forget to mention that 5 minute prior to the crash, they were doing something stupid, like cleaning out system files and random DLLs…
And hardcore is right. The appellate court basically ruled that the remedy was improper, and certain issues are going to go back to trial court. There is also the probabiliyu that the case will go before the Supreme Court.
Hey, if you’re giving out copies of 2k, can I have one? Best damn OS I’ve ever used. (And yes, I’ve used MacOS and Linux) Stable, fast, friendly, easy to install, compatible with all but 3 or 4 programs I’ve thrown at it.
I would have Bill Gates’s children in exchange for this software, if it weren’t for the fact that we’re both guys and he’s just a little bit more than creepy.
Microsoft won, in a nutshell. They’ll get the primo settlement, and then move on to making sure that anything you use works to their advantage.
If that was a win, I’d hate to see a loss. The appeals court upheld a large chunk of the lower court’s decision. They said that Judge Jackson shouldn’t have ordered a breakup without a hearing, but left open the possibility of a breakup (though I think that’s unlikely.)
The appeals court upheld the finding that Microsoft abused its monopoly power, which was the meat of the government’s allegations. It appears from your post that you don’t like Microsoft, so you should be happy. This is a victory for the government and I think you’re getting a little greedy. The appeals court is not going to call Microsoft “evil” or say Gates is an asshole, so you’re going to have to settle for the legal victory.
Actually, my WAG, (Ashcroft’s posturing notwithstanding), is that DoJ will go have a friendly chat with Bill and they will wind up backing off from some of the Clinton DoJ demands. OTOH, the state attorneys general sounded like starved sharks outside a freshly chummed cage waiting for the door to open, so while this won’t end soon, I doubt that the next step is going directly to the Supreme Court.
Zoff, Microsoft won. They won’t be broken up. No matter what softhanded penalty Bush&Co impose, Gates will ignore it, and the DoJ will smile and look the other way.
I don’t think you’re taking all elements into consideration. Microsoft is in a bad position. First, they still face the possibility of being split. The appeals court holding makes it unlikely, but it’s still a possibility.
As for settlement, even if we assume that “Bush & Co.” want to let Microsoft off easy, the state attorneys general are unlikely to agree. So the case will continue and Microsoft will have to go back to the district court and hope things turn out well. And remember, Microsoft will not be able to re-litigate the issue of monopolization of the OS market.
Another issue with settlement is that Microsoft would be letting stand a finding that they are anticompetitive monopolists. This holding can be used in private lawsuits without having to re-litigate the issue. That represents a huge potential liability.
Microsoft lost.
Works like a charm, when you’re running one of the three programs it supports
— G. Raven
Umm…other than games and antivirus software (and even most games made in the past year or two are fine), I have had zero problems. What are you trying to run, Word 2.0 for DOS?
You are woefully ignorant of the origins of this case. This is not a “Clinton DoJ” case. It was begun by the Attorney General of the State of Texas, during the reign of Gov. George W. Bush. Alas, Texas dropped out of the case, but the case remains in the hands of the States. The DoJ can not scuttle this case, nor can Dubya.
Don’t forget the little mom-and-pop operations like Sun Microsystems, Oracle, and America Offline that big, bad, evil Microsoft have put out of business.
Well, you also have to remember that every person who speaks up against Windows is a MacOS or Linux user as well…after all, why would someone continue to use an OS they despise?