Blue screen reaction

Microsoft Trial News
Headlines and the really good stuff

Microsoft should be broken into two independent companies

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled on June 7, 2000

First, despite the Courtís Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Microsoft does not yet concede that any of its business practices violated the Sherman Act. Microsoft officials have recently been quoted publicly to the effect that the company has done nothing wrong and that it will be vindicated on appeal. The Court is well aware that there is a substantial body of public opinion, some of it rational, that holds to a similar view. It is time to put that assertion to the test. Read the entire transcript of the ruling in various places online, including

Microsoft Unexpectadly Files Another Brief

Quotes a 5-Year-Old Document Arguing Against a Breakup
N.Y. Times 05/23/2000

According to The Times, the filing quoted from a document filed in the previous antitrust suit and risks "irritating the judge" since this filing was not in his schedule. Public comment following the filing of the quoted document included industry executives calling the settlement "inadequate" and suggesting Microsoft "ought to be broken up instead." The earlier settlement only imposed conduct remedies. A lawyer was quoted as saying, "That Microsoft repeatedly violated the law after the previous proceeding demonstrated why structural relief is necessary now."

U.S. Judge declares Microsoft is a competition stifling Monopoly; Gates retains defiant stance.

N.Y. Times 11/6/1999

"Through its conduct, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products."

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson

2000 MrGigabyte