________________________________________________________________________________ ================================================================================ Findings of Fact http://www.cnn.com/interactive/computing/9911/microsoft.finding/microsoft.html ================================================================================ Wired News Judge Lowers Boom on MS by Declan McCullagh 5:35 p.m. 5.Nov.1999 PST The US judge overseeing the Microsoft antitrust trial didn't only rule that the company has erected a far-reaching monopoly. He also took the first step toward extreme punishments that could include breaking up the largest software company in the world. In a detailed, 207-page ruling, US Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson rejected nearly every one of Microsoft's explanations and repeatedly sided with arguments that the Justice Department and state attorneys general raised during the trial that began in October 1998. Jackson painstakingly detailed that there were no viable competitors to Windows, dismissing the MacOS, Be/OS, Java, network computers, and handheld devices as technologies certain to "remain small in comparison." He also indicated that he viewed Microsoft as such an industry bully that he'd be open to extreme remedies. "Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products," Jackson wrote. Emboldened competitors immediately seized the opportunity to call for strict remedies, which will be decided in the next phase of the trial that continues through early 2000. Sun Microsystems, which testified as a government witness, said Microsoft should not be allowed to buy companies that would expand its reach into new technologies, and the company should be required to publish key private technical details about its products. Bill Campbell, chairman and acting CEO of Intuit, said in a statement that "nothing short of a lasting structural remedy will suffice." Translation: Break up the company, something that other Microsoft adversaries are now talking more openly about. "Microsoft's failure to deal with parties in good faith suggests the court may entertain structural remedies such as breaking Microsoft into more than one company," said Jamie Love, director of Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology. But although Jackson's passionate embrace of the Justice Department's view of Microsoft's malfeasance is a good indicator of where he stands, Microsoft's adversaries will likely have a long time to wait. Jackson probably won't reach a final verdict until next year, and the Supreme Court may not rule until 2003 on whether Microsoft really did violate antitrust laws after all. William Neukom, Microsoft's general counsel, told Wired News earlier this year he expected a ruling from Jackson around January 2000. "I think it's going to be later this year or early next year," Neukom said. In the next phase, parties will have until 31 January 2000 to finish their proposed "conclusions of law," which Jackson will review before making a decision. If both parties don't settle and the case heads for the Supreme Court, the assumption is that the court will agree to hear the case. Experts say that's particularly likely if the government loses. Once the case reaches the high court, and if the justices decide to take it, add an additional delay of 1.5-2 years. Knotty cases are usually decided toward the end of the court's term, which means the Supreme Court might well rule on it in late June 2002 or 2003. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,32131,00.html ________________________________________________________________________________ no copyright 1999 rolux.org - no commercial use without permission. is a moderated mailing list for the advancement of minor criticism. more information: mail to: majordomo@rolux.org, subject line: , message body: info. further questions: mail to: rolux-owner@rolux.org. archive: http://www.rolux.org