[NTLUG:Discuss] Findings of Fact in US v Micro$oft antitrust case

[sunflower1043@juno.com]

	Hello to all --

	I've located the following working link to the Findings of Fact,
released today by Judge Jackson in the U.S. case against Micro$oft (It
has been a little difficult to find a link, especially one that wasn't
jammed busy).  This link was posted in a reader comment/ response to an
article on Linux Today, and it works:  

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

>From that page, you can view, or save the linked document, either in
Adobe Acrobat (tm) .pdf format, or in Corel WordPerfect (tm) format.  In 
WP format, it was 412KB, taking about 1 minute to download on a 50,000
Kbps dialup connection;  The document is 173 pages long.

	I certainly have not yet read the entire document.  Specifically, at
this moment, I do not know how, if at all, the Judge has treated Linux
nor other OS'es.  (The brief news reports I have read so far, indicate
that Judge Jackson was quite blunt and harsh against M$ in his Findings.)
 I happened upon the following, the last 2 paragraphs of the entire
document.  To me, they are quite compelling.  Quoting Judge Jackson:

	"411.	Many of the tactics that Microsoft has employed have also harmed
consumers indirectly by unjustifiably distorting competition.  The
actions that Microsoft took against Navigator hobbled a form of
innovation that had shown the potential to depress the applications
barrier to entry sufficiently to enable other firms to compete
effectively against Microsoft in the market for Intel-compatible PC
operating systems.  That competition would have conduced to consumer
choice and nurtured innovation.  The campaign against Navigator also
retarded widespread acceptance of Sun’s Java implementation.  This
campaign, together with actions that Microsoft took with the sole purpose
of making it difficult for developers to write Java applications with
technologies that would allow them to be ported between Windows and other
platforms, impeded another form of innovation that bore the potential to
diminish the applications barrier to entry.  There is insufficient
evidence to find that, absent Microsoft’s actions, Navigator and Java
already would have ignited genuine competition in the market for
Intel-compatible PC operating systems.  It is clear, however, that
Microsoft has retarded, and perhaps altogether extinguished, the process
by which these two middleware technologies could have facilitated the
introduction of competition into an important market.

	"412.	Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft’s actions have
conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the
computer industry.  Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq,
Intel, and others, 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.  Microsoft’s past success in hurting such
companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and
businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft.  The
ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit
consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with
Microsoft’s self-interest."

			
						___________/s/_______________
							Thomas Penfield Jackson
								U.S. District Judge



Date:	November 5, 1999"

(end of quoted excerpt from Court's Findings of Fact.)

********************************************************
Posted by:

  Douglas D. Darnold
  Principal/ Attorney
  LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS D. DARNOLD <sunflower1043 at juno.com>
  P. O. Box 12461                                        
  Dallas  Texas 75225-0461
  Voice: 214-368-0068
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.