[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       computerguys-l
Subject:    MS ruling in
From:       Jeff Wright <jeff_wright_01 () HOTMAIL ! COM>
Date:       2001-06-28 18:33:52
[Download RAW message or body]

The District Court of Appeals ruling is in on the MS appeal.  The opinion is
at:

http://ecfp.cadc.uscourts.gov

The meat of the opinion, from a quick read (125 pages), is essentially a
Sleepy Jackson smackdown:

After carefully considering the voluminous record on ap-
peal —including the District Court ’s Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law,the testimony and exhibits submitted at
trial,the parties ’briefs,and the oral arguments before this
court —we find that some but not all of Microsoft ’s liability
challenges have merit.Accordingly, we affirm in part and
reverse in part the District Court ’s judgment that Microsoft
violated §2 of the Sherman Act by employing anticompetitive
means to maintain a monopoly in the operating system mar-
ket;we reverse the District Court ’s determination that Mi-
crosoft violated §2 of the Sherman Act by illegally attempt-
ing 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. Our judgment extends to the District
Court ’s findings with respect to the state law counterparts of
the plaintiffs ’Sherman Act claims.

We also find merit in Microsoft ’s challenge to the Final
Judgment embracing the District Court ’s remedial order.
There are several reasons supporting this conclusion. First,
the District Court ’s Final Judgment rests on a number of
liability determinations that do not survive appellate review;
therefore,the remedial order as currently fashioned cannot
stand. Furthermore, we would vacate and remand the reme-
dial order even were we to uphold the District Court ’s
liability determinations in their entirety, because the District
Court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to address reme-
dies-specific factual disputes.

Finally, we vacate the Final Judgment on remedies, be-
cause the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte
contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the
media and made numerous offensive comments about Micro-
soft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom,
giving rise to an appearance of partiality. Although we find
no evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial
judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the District
Court and called into question the integrity of the judicial
process. We are therefore constrained to vacate the Final
Judgment on remedies, remand the case for reconsideration
of the remedial order, and require that the case be assigned
to a different trial judge on remand. We believe that this
disposition will be adequate to cure the cited improprieties.
In sum,for reasons more fully explained below, we affirm
in part, reverse in part, and remand in part the District
Court ’s judgment assessing liability. **We vacate in full the
Final Judgment embodying the remedial order and remand
the case to a different trial judge for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.**
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


************************************************************************
* ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in  <==
* ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM <==
*      Too much mail? Try Daily Digests: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST
*        Tired of the List? Unsubscribe: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L
* New email? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress
* Need more help? Send mail to: ComputerGuys-L-Request@listserv.aol.com
************************************************************************



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]