Slashdot Mirror
Previous Jackson-Awarded Verdict: US$341M
bumppo writes "This BBC News story hasn't really dented domestic news services aside from AP: seven-year Beirut hostage Terry Anderson and his family were awarded $341 million (including $300 million in punitive damages) against Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security. Ass-kicking Microsoft finder-of-fact and presiding judge Thomas Penfield Jackson oversaw the case, and determined the verdict. "
The judgment against Iran has never been recovered, but it does show a willingness to hit the loser in the pocketbook. According to the Bill Gates Net Worth Page, though, if Judge Jackson were to declare so paltry a figure as sufficient to settle the antitrust suit, Bill could cry all the way to several largish banks.
Timothy - this story is not news for nerds, nor is it stuff that matters in our microcosm. Granted, many other people are happy that this man finally got his day in court (it IS a good thing), but come on man. Just because there is some far-fetched correlation between this and Bill Gates's wealth and judge doesn't mean it's /. front-page material. I'm sure the *BSD crowd would like to get more front page publicity - why not actually post software and computer related stories up front, and delegate stuff like this to the back (as *BSD is now)?
Thank you.
And BTW Timothy - care for some hot grits?
All the good discussion is from the ACs.
Didn't the US freeze Iranian assets after their revolution (in 1979-1980 or so)?
The hidden standards are only one of the ways the abuse the power to the detriment of consumers.
They also leverage the windows monopoly to the office monopoly, and vice versa.
I don't see any loss to the consumer from office & windows coming from separate companies, and several gains. There would no longer be a reason for the shenanagins with hidden behavior, nor funny pricing agreements. Furthermore, all the incentive for the windows group to make progress would continue to exists, and larger than before: they'd have reasons to work with other developers, too.
Where I join the minority is I also want the source code to windows licenesed, to produce competing versions, with some provision for synchronization of features.
(No, I don't mean open-source it; the gov't doesn't have the legal power to do this without paying for it.)
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Given the findings of fact, there is no way, other than flat-out concession by the government, that there *won't* be a finding of anti-trust violation.
The findings are only factual, yes. But this particular set is equivalent to, in a capital murder case, the jury returning "The defendant laid in wait, according to his plan, and when the deceased came along, tortured him before killing him.
The only possible legal conclusion is murder in the first degree with special circumstances. To use microsoft's phrasing, it's only "one step in a long process of litigation," but all that's left is to choose between life without parole and capital punishment.
hawk, esq.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If need legal advice, see
an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
An embassy is foreign soil, over which the guest nation is sovereign. Taking the embassy was an act of war.
Given that situation, the normal protections for Iranian proprty in the U.S. don't hold, and the frozen assets might well be used to sastisfy at least part of the award.
hawk, esq.
her. This is only sensible behavior when there is common ownership, as each monopoly gives up part of its profits to do so.
Under separate ownership, it is no longer in the interest of the windows monopoly to help out the office monopoly at its own expense, and vice versa--the office folks will start demanding access the way the competitors do now.
I was shut down by an ISP in March because I wasn't using Microsoft Windows. And this was 15 years after the first antitrust suit was brought against Microsoft. They've been trying to break up Microsoft for 15 years. In 1997 people started paying attention to it because of the internet, but these stories have never amounted to any improvement for 15 years and they won't in 15 more years.
How can a US judge which means nothing to anyother country on the planet wave a finger at a group 1000's of km's away?
Easy: simply force to pay the damages out of frozen Iranian assets.
You might also ask, how does the EU get off trying to suppress competition from American companies, or to try and force American companies to comply with EU regulations?
This act is not as foolish or hollow as you think, if Terry Anderson (rightly, IMAO) decides to pursue those frozen assets.
And don't put anything past the US: remember Noriega?
Your Working Boy,
How could they complain about sanctions? How can you sue someone for refusing to do business with you?
While it's likely none of this cash will ever be seen, I don't see the similarity: Torturing an American citizen is one thing, but sanctions are basically refusing to deal with someone. Could you sue someone for refusing to trade something with you personally?
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)
- Jeff
Here we have a prime example of the US trying to impose its legal system on the rest of the world. When some poor sod in scandinavia gets hit by the US over hacking, there's outcry. Whip up enough emotion and it suddenly becomes OK.
:v)
Whatever the merits of the case, US laws only apply inside the US - even if the US has passed a law to say otherwise.
Vik
What is the point of this verdict? Is there any way he will ever be able to collect?
Did the Iranians even contest the trial? Perhaps there is someone reading this who knows if a county's assets can be confiscated as payment for a judegement in a civil trial? I doubt it, and I'd say that's about the only way he's ever going to get any money from them.
I think it's good that a judge determined that Iran is guilty; however does anybody here really think that Iran cares?
... :-) , :-(
Iran is currently embroiled in a bitter power struggle as the reformist forces fight the entrenched funamentalist/conservative clergy which has ruled the country since the revolution. Mind you, this is a country where numerous intellectuals, publishes and otherwise dissenting people have been killed, imprisoned or simply disappeared. I don't think they care about a verdict handed down by the 'great satan' (although that's a qualification that isn't heard much anymore these days).
Any spare money Iran has probably goes towards their efforts at acquiring nuclear capability. I've read rumors that the only way Pakistan was able to finance it's nuclear program was by selling (nuclear) know-how to Iran. I don't really think anybody should have nukes, but those two countries certainly shouldn't. Why is it that 3rd world countries rather have nukes than well fed people?
Boy, we live in a wonderful world
This article should not be on slashdot. Just because the judge judged the MS case does not mean we should be interested in him. Hell, he did not even invent the internet like Al Gore.
But seriously, I'd really like to see a news site set up using the slashdot engine. Is there one already ? Is anyone interested in setting one up ? Jon Katz, are you listening ? Could be the WELL II.
This judgment comes in response to a bill passed by Congress a couple of years ago allowing for victims of terrorism to sue the sponsoring government. Congress was well aware that few governments would actually pay damages, so the imagined method of collection was to seize assets that are on US-controlled soil. The only problem with this is that it tends to ignore the larger picture: right now, our relations with Iran are beginning to get better. But were Jackson to send federal marshals in to seize Iranian-controlled assets, our long term relationship with that nation would be severely damaged. This might be the correct thing to do from a justice standpoint, but would be shortsighted as far as long-term diplomacy is concerned.
- Rev.
Microsoft haas supposedly agreed to settle. See http://netscape.marketwatch.com/source/blq/netscap e/archive/20000324/news/current/msft.nsp for details
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
OK this is just stoopid. How can a US judge which means nothing to anyother country on the planet wave a finger at a group 1000's of km's away?
If a Brittsh judge told the FBI to pay Jimmy Pop Ali $500Million. The FBI would just say:
"The heck with you. We don't have to listen to your laws".
So why should Iran be any differen? Does the USA really think that they are so important that their laws apply to the planet? Are all Americans to obnixious that they believe that an Iran gov't group will actually listen to Jackson?
It's attitudes like this that makes me think twice about the "Great American Society".
Assuming relations between Iran and the US do continue to warm (I'm sure they will). I don't know if the government of Iran can legally be held responsible by an American Federal judge, and the US take that money (or any money) based on his ruling alone.
I'm sure many countries could hold the US Gov responsible for their actions during the cold war (and there is plenty). The Shaw of Iran alone killed and imprisoned thousands of Iranians (I had a teacher who lived there then) alone, and the US supported him amidst the Iranian's wishes for a different leader. Can their courts hold our Gov responsible?
I can't see the US gov giving any of that money to Mr. Anderson without Iran's consent first, it would be a terrible example to set.
The problem is the State Departnent is currently making diplomatic overtures to the inreasingly-moderate Iranian governent right now, and doesn't want to rock the boat by subtracting such huge sums from their frozen assets. But it's quite obvious that Anderson has had his day in court, has won a judgement, and by all means deserved it.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
Now here's a novel punishment - Judge Jackson could send Bill Gates to Iran as part of his punishment. The Iranian authorities could cut off one of his hands for stealing market share from other companies!
hoser: Slashdot reader since 1987.
What's so arrogant about this decision, handed down by our favorite idiot of a judge, is that, aside from the fact that this is quite obviously out of US Jurisdiction, and should be handled by the US - Iran Claims Tribunal @ The Hague, is that when the United States Navy shot down an Iranian passenger plane carrying 300 Yes, count them, 290 to be exact, 290 civilian passengers, the Claims Tribunal awarded Iran less than 150 million dollars. And these people are DEAD. that's but 500,000$ to the families of the 300 dead civilians on that flight! But Judge Jackson, who has already proven himself to be a stupid, stupid man, sees fit to award a single man more than 600 times the amount of money that each of the families with dead husbands and wives got. And the man in the US is still alive! It is judges like Mr. Jackson that make me want to spit on the US justice system. The arrogance and utter stupidity that men such as Jackson display is atrocious and it amazes me to no end that the major media outlets don't pick up on things such as this and RAIL on people like Judge Jackson. Thankfully though, this will help to show the public how DUMB Judge Jackson truly is when they hear about his findings of 'fact' etc.
signature smigmature
- James
Right here in River City...
He was released from Iran,
That rhymes with Debian...
That stands for Linux!
Now for something somewhat RELEVANT...
A recommended Good Book(tm)
(it has nothing to do with OS/2 btw...)
http://www.os2hq.com/articles/seven.htm
A book about the current employment situation among IT workers
--AROS is an Open Source AmigaOS clone, and source compatible with AmigaOS! Try the x86 build at http://www.aros.org
Who cares if Judge Jackson happened to hand down the decision. Is everything that Judge Jackson does now news for nerds? Just because he was fooled into believing by the Justice Department and 19 states that Microsoft is so terrible?
It amazes me that people are so quick to agree with Judge Jackson in the first place. This is SLASHDOT DOT ORG. The home of an angry mob of anti-intrusive government pundits. SLASHDOT - Where EVERYONE is adamantly opposed to any decision dealing with software being made in a courtroom - unless the court battle is against Microsoft. The hypocrisy is amazing.
But I digress. Slashdot uses the motto News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters. They also used to use "Ever feel like you're not getting the whole story?"
Well this isn't a nerdy story, and we got the whole story at CNN hours before it was here. THIS is why we need a means of RATING ARTICLES. We don't necessarily need to moderate articles, but we need a means of collectively giving an article the THUMBS DOWN. Anyway, JMTC
Short of a breakup [and that possibility seems remote at this point, given the government's language lately], the worst thing that could happen to Microsoft is for Judge Jackson to hand down a verdict that Microsoft violated anti trust laws (which is going further than the "finding of fact" he released last year).
Regardless of the relative size of any fines or other restrictions on Microsoft's business practices, such a ruling would open Microsoft to enormous amounts of follow-on litigation. Litigation means legal bills, and while MSFT may have the dough to beat ANYone in court, they certainly don't have the resources to beat EVERYone... That's mentioned toward the end of this CNNfn story.
Marc Siry || interactive media professional, motorcycle enthusiast ||
Does anyone else feel that their tax dollars were wasted in this?
I appreciate that Mr. Anderson went through unconceivable pain and all. However even the judge says : ``the likelihood that any award will ever be paid is minimal.'' I can't even see where a federal judge has any jurisdiction in a case against another nation who did not (nor needs to) participate. I think we all can see that Mr. Anderson and his family went through a terrible situation. Did this do anything other than point out a fact we already know?
As for timothy's comments that this is the same judge that is dealing with the MS trial, I don't see any point there. Judges don't' just preside over one case at a time, I'm sure there's lots of cases he is or may handle. I can't see any reason one would be connected to the other, nor should they be.
Come on!! Is this not stretching the limits of on-topic'ness? What's next? The guy who sells Bill Gates coffee in the morning's mother-in-law dies?? --- evel aka matt