Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:01:48 +0100
From: Steve Brockbank <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Masergy
To: The Cyber-Society-Live mailing list is a moderated discussion list
for  those interested <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [CSL]: RE: Justice Dept. downshifts in Microsoft case


Morning,

Sorry, this seems illogical to me, what justification is there to
suggest that the US
state (partially democratically elected) had no claim against a
non-democratic Microsoft?
I am not an expert in US law but it does not seem to follw that they did

not have a
case...

Please explain and justify...

regards


sdv

John Armitage wrote:

> From: " Julie-Ann " <[log in to unmask]>To: CYBER SOCIETY
> Subject: Re:[CSL]: Justice Dept. downshifts in Microsoft case
> Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 20:18:35 -0500
>
> Morning,
>
> I know that I will probably great many enemies with the fact that I
think
> that the USA government, really had no real claim against Microsoft.
If it
> were to  be really looked at, what Microsoft was doing was nothing
more
> then business play.  and they were playing to win.
>
> Go Microsoft!!!
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Original Message
> From: "John Armitage"<[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [CSL]: Justice Dept. downshifts in Microsoft case
> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 08:32:03 +0100
>
> >Justice Dept. downshifts in Microsoft caseBy Joe Wilcox
> >Staff Writer, CNET News.com
> >September 6, 2001, 12:10 p.m. PT
> >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7076177.html?tag=prntfr
> >
> >In a bid to "streamline" the next phase in the Microsoft antitrust
case,
> the
> >government on Thursday said that it would not seek
> >to break up the software giant.
> >
> >The Justice Department also will not seek a rehearing on the tying
> >claim--that Microsoft illegally integrated its Internet Explorer
> >Web browser with Windows 95 and 98. The agency said in a statement
Thursday
> >that it is "taking these steps in an effort to
> >obtain prompt, effective and certain relief for consumers."
> >
> >Even as the agency removed those issues from consideration, however,
it
> >opened the door for others, saying it wants the court
> >"to investigate developments in the industry since the trial
> >concluded"--which could include the forthcoming Windows XP
> >operating system.
> >
> >The announcement also could be part of settlement discussions or an
effort
> >to bring Microsoft to the negotiating table as a new
> >judge gets set to resume hearings in the case.
> >
> >The government might have agreed to publicly take a breakup off the
table,
> >"if Microsoft was willing to (accept) restrictions on
> >XP and other operating systems," said Andy Gavil, an antitrust
professor at
> >the Howard University School of Law. But, he
> >cautioned, "this could easily mean there are no serious discussions
going
> >on."
> >
> >Microsoft, the Justice Department and 18 states are scheduled to meet

over
> >the next two weeks with U.S. District Judge
> >Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

> >Columbia Circuit last month ordered the case returned to
> >the district level, upholding an earlier ruling that Microsoft had
engaged
> >in anti-competitive business practices but requesting
> >reconsideration of the remedies imposed, which included breaking the
> company
> >into separate operating systems and
> >applications businesses.
> >
> >"I'm not really surprised the new administration (of President George

W.
> >Bush) would drop the breakup," Gavil said.
> >"Philosophically, it was not their bag, and the Court of Appeals made

it
> >clear it would be difficult if they would continue to press
> >for it."
> >
> >The abandonment of the tying claim is more of a surprise, but
probably
> stems
> >from the government's quest for speed.
> >
> >"What I think is they thought the new judge was going to have
protracted
> >proceedings before any further trial on remedy on the
> >tying," said Emmett Stanton, an antitrust attorney with Fenwick &
West in
> >Palo Alto, Calif. "They probably calculated the
> >remedy they could get in two years would be no more severe than the
remedy
> >they could get quickly."
> >
> >By removing breakup and tying, Stanton said, "the government has made

it
> >more unlikely for Microsoft to turn this into a
> >protracted process."
> >
> >Thursday's announcement marks a turning away from the government's
saber
> >rattling after the appeals court's June 28 ruling
> >that upheld eight separate antitrust claims against Microsoft.
> >
> >State attorneys general for Connecticut, Iowa and New York, among
others,
> >earlier made it clear that a breakup was still an
> >option. They also raised concerns about new technologies integrated
into
> >Windows XP. At one point, the government appeared
> >ready to seek an injunction against the operating system, which is
expected
> >to appear on new PCs on Sept. 24 and at retail
> >on Oct. 25.
> >
> >Support from the states
> >
> >On Thursday, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said the 18 states were

in
> >agreement with the Justice Department "and the
> >decision not to seek a breakup of Microsoft. Since the Court of
Appeals
> >decision, the states and DOJ have directed their
> >efforts to one objective--the quickest and most effective remedy
possible.
> >This decision is consistent with that objective."
> >
> >That turnabout caught the attention of Bob Lande, an antitrust
professor
> >with University of
> >Baltimore School of Law. "The states no longer asking for breakup
after all
> >this time of being
> >so stiff is really surprising."
> >
> >Microsoft, meanwhile, voiced its hopes for a resolution to the
long-running
> >case.
> >
> >"I'm not a legal person, but we have said for some time we look
forward to
> a
> >fair and
> >expeditious solution, and that's what we continue to strive for,"
said John
> >Conners, chief
> >financial officer at the software company, who was just informed of
the
> >ruling before a
> >presentation at Salomon Smith Barney's Tech 2001 Industry conference
in New
> >York on
> >Thursday.
> >
> >Investors apparently saw no great meaning in the Justice Department's

> >decision, as
> >Microsoft's stock shifted slightly downward for the day, keeping pace

with
> >the Nasdaq as a
> >whole. At the close of the market, shares were off $1.72, or 3
percent, to
> >$56.02.
> >
> >"I don't expect a near-term impact on the business," said Salomon
Smith
> >Barney analyst Richard Gardner, who called the
> >move "a positive, since they're not going after a tie-in and they're
not
> >going after a breakup."
> >
> >In its statement on Thursday, the Justice Department said that rather

than
> >seek a breakup of Microsoft, it would ask the
> >district court for an order modeled after "the interim
conduct-related
> >provisions" issued at the time of the antitrust ruling. It also
> >said it would ask for "a period of expedited discovery" to consider
what
> has
> >happened in the PC industry since the end of the
> >trial "to evaluate whether additional conduct-related provisions are
> >necessary."
> >
> >In the June ruling, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson imposed a number of

> >restrictions on Microsoft's behavior. For example, the
> >company would have to offer equal licensing terms to all PC makers;
would
> >not be able to force Windows licensees to buy
> >other Microsoft software; could not threaten or take action against
> >companies making competing products by withholding
> >license terms, technical support or sales support; and could not lock

PC
> >makers into agreements requiring them to promote,
> >distribute or use Microsoft products.
> >
> >The timing of the announcement--and the fact that one had been made
at
> >all--struck many legal specialists as unusual. The
> >government could have made its intentions known in a scheduled Sept.
14
> >court filing.
> >
> >Observers said that the government could be jockeying for position,
perhaps
> >in advance of a settlement. The backing of the
> >states for the Justice Department's call for a lesser remedy
increases the
> >chances of settlement, some said.
> >
> >"The announcement makes sense if they now want to start getting
serious
> >about negotiating with Microsoft," Lande said.
> >
> >"If the states are onboard, it surely means settlement is likely,"
Gavil
> >said. Microsoft's muted response to the announcement
> >"really does suggest they're at the table. You would expect them, to
the
> >contrary, to be jumping up and down," he said.
> >
> >"I am sure there are settlement talks going on, probably at multiple
levels
> >and at secret back
> >channels," Stanton said. "But I wouldn't read much into the prospects

of
> >settlement from this
> >announcement."
> >
> >Rich Gray, a Silicon Valley antitrust attorney closely watching the
trial,
> >also was skeptical.
> >"The only way I would do this as part of the settlement scenario is
if the
> >damn thing is already
> >signed," Gray said. "But even that doesn't make sense to me as part
of a
> >settlement
> >scenario."
> >
> >No one just takes their two biggest bargaining chips off the table,
he
> said.
> >
> >"The government carries a special burden when it goes into court to
avoid
> >game-playing with the court," Gray added. "If these
> >government attorneys had already made the determination it's not in
the
> >public's best interest to pursue these remedies, then it
> >makes sense not to pretend they're going for something that they're
not."
> >
> >Staff writer Larry Dignan contributed to this report from New York.
> >
>

************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************