Missed Opportunities in U.S. v. Microsoft

cyberlaw writes "The Supreme Court's deadline for filing a final appeal in the landmark U.S. v. Microsoft antitrust case expired yesterday with little notice. But it's a day Andrew Chin has been anticipating for six years. Today Chin, a former legal extern who assisted Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson during the drafting of the November 1999 Findings of Fact in that case, makes his first public comments on the merits of that case, in keeping with the D.C. Circuit's admonition that officers of the court should not comment on impending cases. He has written an op-ed article in today's Raleigh News and Observer.

Chin is currently an associate professor teaching antitrust and intellectual property law at the University of North Carolina. According to his faculty biography, Chin also earned a doctorate in computer science in 1991 as a Rhodes scholar at the University of Oxford. After a few years of teaching math and CS, he picked up a J.D. at Yale Law School, and eventually ended up working behind the scenes on the Microsoft case.

Chin's article raises some new points about the Microsoft case that don't seem to have been considered by any of the parties, courts or commentators during the trial, such as the fact that the Windows and Internet Explorer software products actually consist of legal rights and technological capabilities, not lines of code. A longer piece by Chin is being published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology."

Comments

Re:Yet...

[fizban]

Anyone thinking that the Republicans or Democrats are any different are really blind. The only difference they have is the way they do things, they have the same goals and agendas.

Yeah, they both want a better America, except that Republicans think a better America is formed by corporations with slave workers (that's what a growing economy is for them), while Democrats think it's formed by a well educated and well taken care of populace. They are far, far different.

thanks for the feedback

[brainspank]

regardless of his opinions, which don't appear to be fed by any insight from his role in the case, I say this is just a court monkey's excuse to say "look at me!"

he probably has the job requirement "publish an article based on job experience" in order to get a raise.

either that or he's writing a book.