US Supreme Court Rejects Fast Track MS Case

The submissions have begun to flood in with the news that the US Supreme Court has refused to listen to the DOJ-Microsoft case, saying that it should go to Appeals Court first. This, of course, means that the case will be dragged out for quite a while longer, something which Microsoft was hoping for, as Gates has stated that he hopes the upcoming Presidential elections will put someone in office more friendly to the company. As well, the Appeals court has ruled in MS's favor before. CNNfn has more coverage as well.

Comments

And in further news...

[jd]

The Appeals Court has decided that computers are far too complex for human beings to comprehend, and have placed up an idol to the Great Gates, Prophet of All Things Digital.

Meanwhile, Emperor Gates bought the White House, and issued decrees stating that Microsoft is now the One True Government of the World, and that support for Democracy was to be phased out.

Seriously, this is scary. The appeals court has effectively ruled, in the past, that technology is outside the US legal system. Which may mean MS is essentially lawless and entitled to do anything, whether "legal" or not, with total impunity.

Sure, the Appeals Court might like that now, but I won't be too sure they'll think the same, if MS decides to declare martial law & invade America. They've greater resources & technology than the US Military (which all use versions of MS s/w that MS know the bugs of AND know the security holes of).

IMHO, we need to stop worrying on whether the US Government, in it's efforts to wiretap, have found your secret recipe for chocolate brownies. Instead, we need to pay a bit more attention to a certain corporate giant that has ALL the money, resources and knowledge needed to cripple the US and assert itself as the One True Government.

Conspiracy theory? Sure! Highly Improbable? Certainly! Much more illuminating than arguing over who's "right" - DEFINITELY!

In 100 years time, this case won't make any real difference. But, if the nightmare scenario above turns out to be real, in 100 years time, you'll see a difference that would make your worst nightmares feel warm and cheery.

capitalism

[Loundry]

I am not too naive to understand that the US wants to push this case along as fast as possible so that there isn't too much turmoil within the economy, but isn't that what a capatilist society is supposed to be about? The survival of the fittest? The best companies with the best products that the consumer likes best WINS?!

Yes, this is the theory (as I understand it) behind capitalism: all companies try hard to make good products. Consumers will select the best product and buy it. Therefore, the companies that make the best products win. This competitive activity fosters innovation and our society ends up better off.

Here is the problem: companies only like capitalism when they want to get into a market. Once they are in that market, they hate capitalism. Competitors mean that they have to work harder to make their products better. It's much easier and cheaper to destroy your competitor than to compete against their products.

This is why I believe that the only things that a company should have the right to do in order to increase sales is to improve the quality of their products or services. It is the only thing which fosters what I see as competition. Everything else is designed to destroy competitors, which is, by nature, anti-capitalistic. Let me say that again: competing against a competitor's products is competitive, destroying a competitor is not. (If the competitor is destroyed becuase their products can't compete with yours in terms of quality, then that's another story.)

This is why I believe in antitrust as a valid function of government. It's like the referee at an american football game: they make sure that the teams compete instead of engage in clipping, holding, murder, and other such illegal activities. NOTE: I have no idea the best way for government enforcement of antitrust. Like all government activity, it's ripe for corruption and that part sucks.

Now anyone who has looked at Microsoft's history can tell that their competitive activities have been anything but competitive. Microsoft is out for blood. They will do anything and say anything to destroy their competitors. Therefore, I think that the government's action is capitalistic, for it's attempting to rectify something that is not.

Re:Judicial Bypass

[crumley]

Finally, If the SC would bypass the Court of Appeals, then they would open themselves to a huge increase in their caseload and diminish the value and impact of the lower courts.

A huge increase in case load is unlikely since the law that allows for bypasssing the Court of Appeals only applies to anti-trust cases. Besides which, the SC can decide on each case if they want to allow it to bypass the CoA. I agree that the SC made the right decision (even though I'd like the case to be over with quickly), but the reasons that this is the right decision have nothing to do with SC caseload.

--

Re:Corporations and Due process

[Sloppy]

Corporations are owned by human beings, with rights under the law. They're called the shareholders.

But those shareholders never have to face the consequences of the acts of the company, beyond the potential loss of equity. I really wonder: why do we have limited liability at all? Why is it that an individual is held accountable for their actions, but if a bunch of individuals put their money together, we have laws that waive that accountability? It doesn't makes sense to me. Corporations look like just another socialist/commie invention, in opposition to the principles of capitalism and basic ethics.

If a business doesn't have limited liability, then it really is a person or a group people, and perhaps it should have some rights. But if it's just a shield that lets people do whatever they want to without having to face consequences, then I don't think it deserves any respect or consideration at all.

---

If not this, then who?

[Mike Schiraldi]

So i guess the law that says important antitrust cases can go straight to the Supreme Court is useless, since if they didn't accept this case, i can't imagine one they would. What more did they want?
--

haha

[austad]

Gates has stated that he hopes the upcoming Presidential elections will put someone in office more friendly to the company.

Gates will be fuckity-fuck-fucked if Nader gets into office. Vote Anti-corporation

Re:Call me crazy:

[deacent]

I am not too naive to understand that the US wants to push this case along as fast as possible so that there isn't too much turmoil within the economy, but isn't that what a capatilist society is supposed to be about? The survival of the fittest? The best companies with the best products that the consumer likes best WINS?!

Who said anything about liking MS products? The public has brought this upon themselves by treating MS as the only viable option. It's sort of a vicious cycle. The OEMs don't want to risk their Windows contracts because they feel the market won't buy their computers without Windows and the public only sees Windows because the OEMs had to pay for a Windows license for every machine shipped, regardless of whether it had Windows on it or not. I wonder if you would have seen Dells with Red Hat on them if it wasn't for this case.

I'm not crazy about the idea of trying to punish a company because they are successful, but that's not what the DOJ has been arguing. They are arguing that MS became successful and then used the power afforded to them by their success to keep potential threats of competition at bay. That's what the Sherman Act is about. Contrary to popular belief, it is legal to have a monopoly in the U.S. You just need to make sure you compete on merits.

-Jennifer

Re:Call me crazy:

[MartinG]

"Survival of the fittest" is good.

"Survival of someone who happens to be very big because they once perhaps used to be the fittest and are now bullying the fittest into submission" is bad.

> The government sticks it's nose too much into the economy as it is.

I whole-heartedly agree.

> I say, "Good for Microsoft."

I whole-heartedly think "bollocks"

Re:Rehnquist won't recuse himself either...

[Pfhreakaz0id]

I'm not so sure. According to this article about the matter "Federal law says judges should disqualify themselves from cases in which their child is known to have "an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."

Rehnquist apparently doesn't think there is a legal problem nor an appearance one by a "reasonable" person. I disagree (and I'm pretty neutral about Micro$oft)
---

Hope it Backfires

[Greyfox]

It'd be most amusing if Ralph Nader somehow managed to make it into office. Never happen, of course, but I'm sure if it did, it'd provoke some most amusing responses in Redmond.

Re:Due process.

[4im]

Don't deny them the same legal process anyone else is entitled to

IIRC MS themselves asked for the case to be brought to the supreme court. So, there can be no talk about denying them anything.

I am just sad that this is going to take that much more time in which MS is going to wreak havoc on the IT industry. They do have a track history for that, and disrespect of court's orders etc.

Microsoft Anti-Trust Too Soon For Supreme Court

[satch89450]

I'd like to put forth another view, one that has been synthesized from a number of legal web sites and magazine articles published at the time Da Judge petitioned the Supreme Court to take the M$ case.

The one statement that was made by virtually every single source, both pro and con, was that the Supreme Court was not equipped to deal with all the issues that the Microsoft appeal would raise. When it was compared to the AT&T breakup, every single writer said that the major difference between AT&T and Microsoft was that there were no disputes in fact or procedure in the AT&T case versus many disputes in fact and procedure in the Microsoft case. Anyone who had read the briefs from DoJ and Microsoft will agree that the two sides are far, far apart on many issues.

One interesting prediction I recall was that if the Supreme Court were to take up the action, the Higest Court would "hire" the DC Court of Appeals to do much of the legwork. The pundit then speculated that the difference between that procedural model and the more formal appeal-superappeal process would be minimal. What I recall of the article said "It might save a month or two of time."

I disagree with other posters in this thread. The Supreme Court hasn't refused to hear any appeal at all. The action taken by the Supreme Court was specific to taking the case now instead of later, when the Appeals court could take care of the viewpoint differences of the two sides.

Also, the DC Court of Appeals would be able to rule on such things as the lack of a remedies phase of the trial.

Me, I think it's a good thing.

Rehnquist won't recuse himself either...

[fwr]

Reuters reports (via Yahoo!) that his son works for a Boston law firm and is actually working on a private antitrust case for Microsoft! Now, if that isn't a conflict of interest then I don't know what is...

Maybe this is good for Open Source?

[Paul Bristow]

OK everyone. Microsoft isn't going to get split up in a few weeks like everyone here seems to want. We have three possible scenarios:

1) MS is split. MS/OS runs like crazy to fix the stupid bugs and cuts much better deals with the PC makers. MS/Apps promises to release Office for Linux and Mac & Anything else, making corporate purchasers happy and destroying the chances of OSS office suites.

2) MS is stuck in court for years, distracting senior management and stopping .NET from being more than wishful thinking. All the productive people are seriously demotivated and start buying posters at ThinkGeek. Probably nothing serious will happen at the end but if they're tied up for long enough it won't matter. GNU/Linux, KDE & Gnome will take over the desktop by being nice to people and not trying to sue them.

3) The case is thrown out of the appeals court, the government doesn't appeal and corporations end up ruling the world. The internet becomes a kind of dumbed-down AOL with the wild old TCP/IP being removed as too open to abuse by terrorists, hackers and other undesirables.

My money is on scenario 2, option 3 is too dangerous even for the US government (I hope). Either way, lets keep on building OSS solutions and promoting the fact that companies don't have to spent large sums of money and sign dodgy EULAs to get the solutions they need.

Judicial Bypass

[Global-Lightning]

The Supreme Court made the right decision by not taking this case before it's heard by the Court of Appeals.

It allows more arguments to be made and heard, creating a larger body of knowledge surrounding the case before it goes to the SC. Very little new information or lines of reasoning are made when a case goes to the SC, rather the Court passes judgement on decisions and arguments made in the lower courts.

This decision preserves 200 or so years of judicial protocol where the SC is the *last* court of appeals, in which they hear only cases that merit there attention. They could very well decide *not* to hear this case if they believe the Court of Appeals came to the right decision. This is a process the entire Judicial system would be extremely reluctant to tinker with.

Finally, If the SC would bypass the Court of Appeals, then they would open themselves to a huge increase in their caseload and diminish the value and impact of the lower courts.

Just because the could take a case directly, doesn't mean they have to.

Due process.

[Bilestoad]

Hate Microsoft all you like. Don't deny them the same legal process anyone else is entitled to - no matter what you think you might know about what they did or how they did it.

And then if they wind up broken-up or subject to some other remedy, justice is seen to be done and they have nothing left to complain about. It should be obvious that this court case has been about PR as much as law. ("Freedom to Innovate" etc...)

Sure the lawyers get rich, but when hasn't this been the case?

Corporations and Due process

[Deskpoet]

WHY should an immortal paper entity be given due process? A corp is a thing, with less life than a slug (and even less benefits to the planet).

I wish you corp leeches would get a clue. This is MY world, too, and every time you equate a human being with a faux entity like a corporation, you steal a bit of our collective humanity, diminishing me and everyone else right along with your sorry selves.

If you want to be a lap dog, feel free. Just keep it away from the rest of us.

Due process INDEED.

Re:Call me crazy:

[OlympicSponsor]

"The government sticks it's nose too much into the economy as it is."

This is a great concept--but you are only applying it halfway. You've either got to do the whole thing, or none at all. For instance, how do you think MS got to the point it is? A lot of it was through patents (gov't intervention), copyrights (gov't intervention) and licensing (contract law is more gov't intervention).

Microsoft is benefitting from governmental (which is to say "societal") institutions such as the above, therefore it has to be good back to us. If it doesn't we retaliate (through anti-trust lawsuits, etc). You can't deplore anti-Microsoft action while ignoring pro-Microsoft action.
--