>Sure, though with the new administration apparently eager to put this and some other cases (tobacco for example) behind them I'd wager that this will end up not being a breakup but perhaps a large fine and some restrictions and maybe even some outside oversight.
>

Different types of cases entirely. The Microsoft Case is an anti-trust case, which is criminal in nature. The tobacco litigation OTOH is civil. These can be tried in either state or federal court. The courts have some control over the litigation in that a class or several classes can get certified. Even if this does happen, which would be very difficult since defining the various classes would be difficult, folks can choose to opt-out of the class and go their own way. Also, the 6th Amendment guarantees your right to a trial in civil cases in excess of $20. Of course, most civil cases never go to trial, rather, they settle. In the tobacco wars however, the stakes are too big. The bottom line, the federal government cannot stop the tobacco litigation. The tobacco companies OTOH, could file for bankruptcy. This put an abrupt end to the absetos litigation craze of the 80's and early 90's.

As for the Microsoft case goes, I do believe there will be a settlement. On one hand, the court of appeals reversed the district court with respect to violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. However, the court of appeal still held that Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive conduct. That is still a big deal, and for sure, Microsoft is going to have to change some of its business practices. As far as a fine goes, we are talking about a company with billions in the bank. Any fine the gov't would levy would be paid out of MS's petty cash drawer!! < bg >..

Seriously, I don't know how this is going to, in the long run that is, affect how MS does business. Let's face it, this sort of litigation is a new frontier of sorts. Briding 100 year old anti-trust law with 21st century business and technology. MS put forth this argument: Microsoft made no claim that anti-competitive conduct should be assessed differently in technology dynamic markets. Rather, MS claims that the measure of monopoly power should be different. The court of appeal rejected this argument as would I. Based on the facts, the law applies or it does not apply. Having a different set of rules for a specific player in the market is nonsense.

My guess is that MS is going to be very crafty. They are going to figure out what they cannot get away with, and then incrementally step back to the point of where they will be "technically" in compliance. It will depend on how crafty and smart the gov't is in the settlement talks. When it comes to this new frontier of technology, hopefully, the gov't will be able to match step with MS.

As for Judge Jackson, I would not be surprised if he retired over this. An entire section of the court of appeal opinion was devoted to his misconduct. The court's opinion is harsh. Several prominent law professors were interviewed and they had never heard of anything like this happening before.

It will be very interesting to see what happens.






>>
>>In the end, I think there are going to be stiff penalties for MS..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The following can be found at:http://www.washtech.com/news/software/10807-1.html
>>>
>>>
>>>By The Associated Press
>>>Thursday, June 28, 2001; 11:52 AM
>>>
>>>The appeals court ruled that U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson improperly conducted himself in the case, leaving himself open to the appearance he was biased against Microsoft.
>>>"We vacate the judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality," the court said.
>>>
>>>
>>>Essentially, it appears that Judge Penfield showed so much bias during the trial that he caused his own judgements to be reversed. Looks like a pretty forceful slap at Judge Penfield more than anything directed (positive or negative) towards Microsoft itself.
>>>
>>>I'm sure though that the lawyers at Microsoft are happier right now than an hour or two ago. <g>