Slashdot Mirror
US DOJ Says Jackson Not Biased
the_rev_matt sent in linkage to CNN talking about how the DOJ has said that Jackson was not biased in his Microsoft Ruling. Now mind you since
nothing will ever happen as a result of his ruling, I guess it doesn't really matter either way.. I mean, many people think Microsoft is a monopoly. But doesn't appear that anything will change.
From my understanding, as long as the trial is only on civil charges (which is what this case is) and the defendant being a business, the jury by peers is dropped for practical reasons. If this were a criminal case (for example, rumored bits that the CEOs of Ford and Firestone might have been brough in on criminal charges related to knowingly distributing bad tires), then a jury of peers would have been called. IANAL of course.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Now mind you since nothing will ever happen as a result of his ruling, I guess it doesn't really matter either way.
I urge you to read the "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" article from Wired a couple months back. My take on it is that progress really did get made through this lawsuit. Two important things happened. One was that a bunch of Microsoft people were finally confronted with reality (rather than Bill's version of reality, which, pity the poor billionarie, he really appears to believe) in a credible way, and they reacted by leaving. That had to have had some effect on the faith of the remaining true believers there.
Second, though, was that it marked an important turning point for non-geeks. Much of our ranting about things that Microsoft has done was easily dismissible by the teeming masses as "jealosy of Bill's wealth" or whatever. The findings of the court finally put some of that in the public's face in a significantly less deniable fashion.
The public, of course, will soon have or has already forgotten, but I think a lot of industry types have had the huge morale boost of seeing the giant stumble. That in itself is probably already changing the way things are being looked at and planned.
But even if you don't agree with any of this, at least take the first suggestion and read the article. Not only will it bring back a lot of interesting things about the trial you might have forgotten, it contains a wealth of information that was really juicy but under embargo until the end of the trial.
--
Liberty uber alles.
How about a bunch of quotes from you on /. taken out of context?
'Computers are supposed to make everyone's life easier, not harder. That's why we need pretty dialog boxes.' - Xenomech
'Has the rush to commercialize the web destroyed its commercial viability?' - Xenomech
'I don't get any anymore.' - Xenomech
'"No" means "No". It does not mean "No, but, in a little, while assume I meant 'Yes' and tell me to say 'No' again if I *really* meant 'No' the first time".' - Xenomech
The point is not that you are an idiot, obviously you are not. The point is that if you want to, you could pull a choice selection of quotes from just about anyone and make them look like an idiot (I'm sure you could find a bunch from my posts) - I personally think that the more creative someone is, the more likley you are to get a bunch of slightly messed-up remarks. That doesn't mean they are an idiot, and might mean they can approach problems with a little more creativity than others...
By buying into and propigating the myth that ANYONE at that level of politics is an idiot, you are just a tool of the media AND even worse you are underestimating the other side and presenting a weaker argument than you might otherwise. How could someone really be an idiot and get to that level? They ovviosuly have some skills, even if one of them might not be perfect diction.
For instance, I didn't like Gore but I didn't go around saying he was an idiot or made of wood or any other juvinile things that other people come up with. I disagree with his methods and personally find how he uses his intelligence to be quite dangerous (Clipper chip). I pointed that out instead of calling him a woody drone.
If you want to attack Bush, try basing it in reality and cease the mindless flaming. All I've heard from the other respondents is 'Of course he'll try and stop it, he's an idiot'! You look like a mindless pack of (poorly programmed) attack trolls. Show some creativity and thought in your arguments!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
</sarcasm>
information wants to be expensive...nothing is so valuable as the right information at the right time.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
However, the DOJ is biased. They were one of the sides in the case, for pete's sake! So why does it matter that one of the sides in the case, which clearly is biased, says that the judge was not biased?
It boggles the mind why this completely obvious point warrants a headline on Slashdot.
Hay thar.
In the common-law system of trial by jury, the judge is the gatekeeper/refereee and the jury is the factfinder/deliberator. Juries have a strong history of protecting the accused from arbitrary prosecution and of truly showing what the people think should happen. It used to be that juries sat on all criminal proceedings. Sadly, this is no longer the case.
But more importantly, juries by definition aren't biased. Juries are composed of laypeople who have no political motives one way or the other. They're a legitimizing force for the government (hence why the king of England originally instituted grand juries) because they're as close as we can get to the intrinsic truth. Any case that we're not willing to put before a jury of our peers isn't worth pursuing. And any case that we have to resort to getting a paid career judge to decide is tainted with suspicion.
Microsoft probably did break the law. But we'll never know for sure, because they weren't tried by a jury in the proper tradition. You should feel outraged. I know I am.
Read the rest of this comment...
I think the DOJ's rebuttal to MS's appeal arguements is trying to remind the court that facts have been put in place from the lower court proceedings, and that is the heart of the issue: did Jackson misintreprete the evidence to achieve those facts? Doubtful - the evidence was plainly against MS and regardless of how much bias a judge may have, the only intelligent conclusion from the evidence was that there was a monopoly and the abuse of that position involved. Maybe his final verdic was one where he had some bias involved, but it probably was also one where he realized that there would be rounds of appeals including him possibly seeing the case, and that the true final judgement against MS would probably be smaller than any initial penalty he might state. Therefore, he used a rather damaging penalty as a starting point, expecting that a final penalty will be reduced from that, but still significant.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I think this transcript of the Senate hearings on Microsoft & their potential anticompetitive practices would have been a more interesting topic for discussion, since Sen. Ashcroft asks Bill G. a number of pointed questions, and says at one point "I think we all agree here that Microsoft has a monopoly." Will the DOJ under Bush (and, presumably Ashcroft) be as friendly towards Microsoft as people predicted before the election?
Just my 2c.
Microsoft:
judge is biased.
DOJ:
judge is not biased.
and in other news...
RIAA:
Napster is stealing.
Napster:
Napster is not stealing.
Marsha Clark:
OJ did it.
Jonny Cockren:
If the glove don't fit...
Coke:
Pepsi sucks.
Pepsi:
Coke sucks.
Does it really make a lot of sense that the US government openly accuses Microsoft of being a monopoly and then asks them to be responsible for their new voting system?
"Yeah, you're a huge monopoly, we're going to fsck you up! Oh, by the way could you do our voting system? We'll pay you tons of money!"