Former judge defends his bid to break up Microsoft

TalkBack 38 of 173:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Revisionist MS history?

>>> He was biased from day one. He wasn't being a judge. He was being an advocate by crusading in front of the press. He wasn't even a smart advocate. Judges have to remain neutral to render a fair outcome for all parties. They are the ultimate referees. >>>

IIRC, when Jackson was named to be the judge for the trial, it was seen as a good thing and to MS's advantage as Jackson was seen to be business-friendly. (ie, automatically favouring MS if anything ? eg, mid-90s consent decree (MS agrees not to tie-in MS products to OS but still allows other features integration) was deemed too lenient towards MS and thrown out by Judge Sporkin only to be approved on appeal by the same "anti-MS" Judge Jackson being vilified here)

That perceived "pro MS/business-bias" quickly changed with MS's cocky, arrogant, dismissive attitude, disrespect shown in Jackson's court and outright questionable testimony and evidence (damning MS emails, witnesses, faked video tape, etc). Judges don't take kindly to being lied to and treated with disrespect in their own courts, any judge, not just Jackson. What did MS expect his reaction to be or did it really care since it deems itself untouchable and apparently above the law???

Jackson's attitude towards MS occurred AFTER MS's court room misdemeanor, not before, so re Jackson, Microsoft was the author of it's own misfortune, and all the damning evidence didn't help.

Judges make decisions and judgments based on the evidence presented and the "presentation/attitude" of the accused... that's what Jackson did (facts were supported on review). He has rightly been castigated for his "big mouth" but to the MS faithful, that is grounds for dismissal of the facts and MS's illegal and unethical actions and in the end, a red herring.

>>> Now MS in front of a fairer judge, decided MS didn't need breaking up. >>>

Only deemed "fairer" because she (you are referring to K.K?) came down soft on MS.

The whole complexion of the case changed with the election of Bush and the Republicans. (The DOJ had a slam dunk case but snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in capitulating and letting MS off the hook. Also, IIRC, many in the DOJ office refused to "sign off" on the new "anti-trust lite" change in direction from it's new political masters (Bush/Ashcroft).)

Charges and accusations of the whole case being politically motivated and/or influenced (by the Democrats) is bogus and flies in the face of all the damning evidence and facts revealed during the course of the trial, with the only evidence of political interference being in the about-face of the DOJ after the Republican win.

(*** This from a Canadian with no U.S. political ties or allegiances... just an observer of the day-to-day happenings and many independent articles on the trail.)

Posted by: MacCanuck   Posted on: 06/22/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now