posted 04-03-2000 06:49 PM         

---

As discussed on this board:

Guilty! U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that software giant Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act in illegally tying its web browser to the Windows operating system in a successful effort to crush rival Netscape. The judge also said that the software giant could be liable under state anti-competition laws. The trial now enters the remedy phase, which will determine how Microsoft will be punished for its illegal actions. (source: MSNBC)
http://msnbc.com/news/390192.asp
DOJ Findings of Law: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm

posted 04-03-2000 05:23 PM         

---

By the way, from News.com:

The European Commission said today its investigation into alleged antitrust violations by Microsoft will continue regardless of the decision in a separate U.S. investigation.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1629085.html

posted 04-03-2000 05:21 PM         

---

Guilty, guilty, guilty (ruling just came out).

And dude, I think we understand each other pretty well, it's just a healthy difference in opinion. And I think both sides have strong arguments, I just like to bring up my possibility, cause it is a real possibility.

And with regards to the government giving up, they didn't feel any pressure to settle. I think they saw that it might be in the best interests of everybody to try to settle out of court, but if they couldn't, cest la vie. It's kind of like on law and order, when the prosecution can offer a settlement, but they feel no pressure to HAVE to get a settlement...they are just as happy to go to court. It's usually the defendant who feels the need to settle, especially is a guilty ruling is imminent, like it was in this case.

posted 04-03-2000 04:43 PM         

---

> dude, the judge ended talks because they couldn't reach an agreement. So it is almost as if Gates gave up - same result. MSFT clearly knows that without reaching an agreement, their say in the matter becomes zero.
One could argue exactly the same thing for the government (i.e. an agreement wasn't reached, so they must have given up).

Once again, we seem unable to explain our positions to each other. In case, the judge is supposed to make his decision in about 20 minutes, at which point we'll probably be able to end this discussion and start a whole new one...

posted 04-03-2000 01:20 PM         

---

Though differences in opinion remain between Microsoft and the government over a mediation settlement and agreement, sources say that the government's position and offer does not include a Microsoft breakup. (source: NY Law Journal)
http://www.nylj.com/stories/00/03/033000a1.htm

Cisco briefly passed Microsoft last week as the most valuable company in the world. One columnist believes the event signals a passing of the torch from desktop computing to internet computing. (source: Street Advisor)
http://streetadvisor.com/Article/Article.asp?aid=2212

posted 04-03-2000 11:34 AM         

---

dude, the judge ended talks because they couldn't reach an agreement. So it is almost as if Gates gave up - same result. MSFT clearly knows that without reaching an agreement, their say in the matter becomes zero.

And if you notice, i didn't mention the word breakup. I am merely referring to Gates being able to say "We had no choice" with whatever the judge ends up ruling. That's easier PR than trying to explain reasons behind a settlement to shareholders.

And why exactly would the company go down the tubes and Gates would lose $100 billion? Whatever Gates and MSFT are actually doing, you better believe they are trying to have the best interest's of the company at the forefront of their focus. That is why it's so crazy that they leave MSFT's future in the hands of a judge, unless it helps them.

posted 04-03-2000 09:57 AM         

---

> Time to bring up my old argument that Gates wanted to lose all along.
I won't bother trying to persuade you that this is wrong, as others have tried and failed. I can't get into his brain and see what he wants, but I can tell you that a breakup is not in the best interest of Microsoft or its shareholders (although it might be for the country and other technology companies).

> You need to ask yourself why in the world Gates would give up on mediation.
Gates didn't give up, the judge did: on Saturday, Judge Richard Posner, who heads the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago, announced the settlement talks had reached an impasse and ended his role as mediator.

> The blame for whatever comes from this will then be placed solely on the government's heads.
And I'm sure Gates will feel great if the company goes down the tubes and his $100 billion plummets... at least he'll be able to say it wasn't his fault

posted 04-03-2000 09:27 AM         

---

Gates and Co. have given up on mediation due to "substantial difference" with the government, and have decided to wait for the judge's decision.

Time to bring up my old argument that Gates wanted to lose all along. You need to ask yourself why in the world Gates would give up on mediation, during which Microsoft still has alot of power, and defer totally to a decision by a judge, a situation in which Microsoft has zero power? On the surface, it just doesn't make any sense. If it were clear that the judge would rule in favor of MSFT, then sure. But the reason settlement talks were going on was because the oppositie was the case - the judge WILL rule against MSFT, and usually a settlement works better for a defendant in the end.

I still say - Gates wants to lose. In the end, through a judge decree, Gates can always say "we tried, but in the end had no choice because of the ruling. We are the victims here." The blame for whatever comes from this will then be placed solely on the government's heads.

posted 03-30-2000 07:43 PM         

---

In brief:

In an email sent Monday, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer told employees that the company will make further "substantial" offers in settlement negotiations aimed at ending the landmark antitrust suit brought by the government.

posted 03-28-2000 06:38 PM         

---

In brief:

Microsoft finally unveiled its newest browser for the Macintosh platform--a full year after releasing Internet Explorer 5 for Windows.

All times are EST (US)