Thomas Penfield Jackson Dead

US DOJ v M$ was a great trial. It came close to cutting M$’s illegal monopoly over desktop operating systems off at the knees. The Judge in that case has died. He recommended that M$ be broken up, unbundling the company if not the product…
“When a Microsoft lawyer complained that too many excerpts from Bill Gates’s videotaped deposition — liberally punctuated with the phrase “I don’t remember” — were shown in the courtroom, Judge Jackson said, “I think the problem is with your witness, not the way his testimony is being presented.”

see Thomas Penfield Jackson, Outspoken Judge, Dies at 76 –

So close and yet so far thanks to other judges in the politically stacked courts and in a government run by heavily lobbied politicians of USA. The case should have been the beginning of the end of the monopoly but instead M$ was allowed to agree to keep its monopoly by crossing off a few items from its rapidly growing list of dirty tricks. You can read all the details in US DOJ v M$. The documents are still on the web. I even have my own repository of the trial exhibits. They are a goldmine of M$’s perfidy.

Here’s an example. M$ paid ISPs for each user they switched to using M$’s browser. That wasn’t about selling a product. It was about locking in users to a monopoly.
“We are trying to figure out how to incent ISPs to move their installed base (as opposed to new customers) to IE. With Netcom we will refund them $9 from the ISP referral server bounties for every existing customer they move to IE.”

see US DOJ v M$ Exhibit 86.

How a crime of global proportions became an agreement not to do a short list of things is beyond me, but it is what it is. Fortunately the world can and does make wonderful software like Debian GNU/Linux so we don’t need M$ at all any more and they are sliding into irrelevance.

What US courts failed to do, the world will eventually fix.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Thomas Penfield Jackson Dead

  1. oiaohm says:

    bw the Microsoft DOJ case shows pure lack of teeth in the USA laws handling Anti-trust and lack of will by the DOJ in the USA to enforce it.

  2. oiaohm says:

    bw there are no Criminal offences in the USA covering Anti-Trust. It is one of the things that got me into trouble in the past with mapping back to Australian law. EU and Australia do have criminal Offences.

    Please be aware EU was able to enforce their fines on Microsoft by USA Courts because the charges in the EU were valid in the USA. Bw you are in a hole and a half here. Those changes in the EU were valid under the Sherman Anti-trust Act.

    So Microsoft has be hit twice in the USA under the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Once by the DOJ and Once by the EU. EU hit was for multi-able offences.

  3. bw says:

    You bet M$ was motivated to settle…

    Well, they are in the software business and not in the litigation business, so of course they want it to end. Significantly, it did not end with a settlement across the board since about 10 states refused to settle with the rest. The final judgement was virtually identical to the earlier settlement, though. It was still a judgment in the end.

    You are grossly mistaken about the felony aspect of all this. All I can say is that you cannot substitute a dictionary for a court ruling and even a PhD in physics would not quality you to have a say in such a matter, much less an MS.

  4. “Section 2:
    “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]””

    Felony: ” A heinous crime; especially, a crime punishable by death or imprisonment.
    [1913 Webster]

    You bet M$ was motivated to settle…

  5. bw says:

    “Violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act is a crime”

    Not per se and not in this instance. There was no criminal complaint filed and the circumstances here were way short of any such specification. It was a civil matter that didn’t even result in a fine, simply a cease and desist sort of agreed upon settlement for most of the parties and an injunction to do the same for the rest. I am sorry to have to tell you that is not crime at all.

    If the charges that ended up being found as true were the only charges that could have been filed, the action would never have been filed in the first place. The things that Microsoft was enjoined to cease were trivial and had no real effect on their business, which has more than quintupled from the time of this action.

  6. Maou Sadao wrote, “Microsoft have committed no crimes.”

    Violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act is a crime. The court of appeals upheld that finding.

  7. oiaohm says:

    bw so what are we saying we should publish the EU case of Netscape and the like that say basically the same thing and was not reversed.

    There is a problem here. For some reason EU the rulings held. Also even the the USA case the reason for the attempted rulings were not over turned.

    The do not remember defence was also tried in the EU anti-trust case. Problem here is in EU anti-trust cases it don’t hold. If the company CEO cannot find out the information in a recess since he is the CEO he is incompetent by EU company rules. Pleading the 5 is also not possible in the EU.

    Really the Microsoft case shows clear limitations of the USA legal system when dealing with companies.

  8. lpbbear says:

    Love how these ass clowns like to rewrite history!

  9. Ted says:

    The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held unanimously that Jackson’s violations of judicial standards were “deliberate, repeated, egregious, and flagrant.”

    The court found that Justice Jackson had, in violation of the code of conduct for U.S. judges, given biased interviews to the news media while the trial was still going on.

    The appeals court said the trial judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson, “seriously tainted the proceedings.” It removed him from the case and tossed out his order calling for the breakup of the software titan.

    In addition, the court threw out a claim that Microsoft attempted to extend its monopoly to the browser market.

    “The only clear loser was Thomas Penfield Jackson” – The Economist.

  10. bw says:

    “bw lied … Jackson was not removed for ethics violations”

    Your own cite says ” The Court of Appeals found that Judge Jackson was guilty of creating the appearance of partiality–and under the applicable standards of judicial conduct, either actual bias or merely the appearance of partiality can disqualify a judge.”

    Further, the Appeals Court decision states:

    In this case, however, we believe the line has been crossed. The public comments were not only improper, but also would lead a reasonable, informed observer to question the District Judge’s impartiality.”

    So the court sent the case back and appointed a different judge. If that I not in the category of ethics violation, what would you call it?

  11. Maou Sadao says:

    Microsoft have committed no crimes. And that’s it. IBM on the other hand have aided the Nazis in committing genocide. But Mr. Pogson whitewashed them here on this blog. Go figure.

  12. bw lied when he wrote, “Few judges have ever faced such an embarrassing reversal on so wide of a scale and were removed for ethics violations to boot.”

    Jackson was not removed for ethics violations. Some even argue he should not have been removed from the case at all.

  13. bw says:

    “He recommended that M$ be broken up, unbundling the company if not the product…”

    But a bunch of far smarter judges, who had been promoted to the circuit court due to their achievements ruled that he was all wet. He has done a great disservice to people like you who are so desperate to find negative information about Microsoft by publishing his erroneous findings of law. Many anti-Microsoft posters have come across these rulings and have thought they were valid when they were not. Few judges have ever faced such an embarrassing reversal on so wide of a scale and were removed for ethics violations to boot. Your praise is misplaced here.

Leave a Reply