Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US DOJ Says Jackson Not Biased

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the well-maybe-I-guess dept.

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.

4 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. DOJ trying to move away from politiking by Masem · · Score: 5
    If you recall MS's original documents for the appeal, they didn't focus much on the meat of the case (that is, the findings of fact that they *are* a monopoly (not illegal), and abused that monopoly power (illegal)), but instead were trying to erode Jackson's integrity as well as playing games with those technicalities of the court that could be said that they didn't get a fair trial out of. In fact, during the case itself, before it was known how much concempt that Jackson *seemed* to have to MS, MS was already playing the politiking side of things, trying to avoid the issues and instead focus on character and integrity.

    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:
  2. better question: is Ashcroft (future AG) biased? by davebo · · Score: 5
    Sure the DOJ's going to say Jackson isn't biased. That's their job. And MSFT's attorneys will say he was. That's their job, too. Big whoop.

    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.

  3. I get it!!!! by DzugZug · · Score: 5

    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.

  4. I don�t get it... by Spamuel · · Score: 5

    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!"