Antitrust for Dummies

By Levy, Robert A.; Reynolds, Alan | The American Spectator, November 2000 | Go to article overview

Antitrust for Dummies


Levy, Robert A., Reynolds, Alan, The American Spectator


The good news about the Microsoft case is that it is no longer in the hands of one Thomas Penfield Jackson. Jackson, you may recall, is the federal judge in Washington, D.C., who ruled against Microsoft, finding that the software giant had violated antitrust law, undercut rivals, and inhibited innovation. The remedy Jackson ordered was nothing less than Microsoft's dismemberment-that it be split into two smaller companies. And pending the split, Microsoft would be shackled by a number of restrictions on its conduct.

Microsoft may not be the most appealing company around. But the case brought by the Justice Department's Antitrust Division was a weak one and should have been rejected by Judge Jackson. Fortunately, courts like his don't have the last word. There are courts of appeal, and of course Microsoft has appealed. Soon the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which will likely be a friendlier venue, will have the chance to reverse Jackson and rebuke the government. Let's hope they take it.

Here is what Jackson did: Ran a trial corrupted by procedural irregularities. Made findings of fact that were plainly erroneous. Drew unjustified legal conclusions. And rubber-stamped government remedies that were neither proportionate nor even related to Microsoft's alleged infractions.

In its initial complaint, the Justice Department said that Microsoft had illegally "tied" the Internet Explorer browser to the Windows operating system. In other words, the two products were sold as a single package and any buyer who wanted to acquire Windows would have to take Internet Explorer as well. According to Justice, Microsoft had included the free browser not to make Windows more attractive, but for the sole purpose of ending a vaguely-described "middleware threat" from Netscape's browser and Sun Microsystems' Java programming language. When the D.C. Circuit ruled that adding Internet browsing capabilities to Windows did not constitute illegal tying, the government vastly enlarged the scope of the trial. Despite the amplified charges, Jackson never required the government to include them in an amended complaint. Instead, he simply assured Microsoft that he "would not be making any findings" and "would not predicate any relief '- i.e., remedies-based on the new allegations. In the end, those assurances meant nothing, for Jackson proceeded to do what he said he would not.

Jackson's courtroom was tilted against Microsoft from start to finish. Jackson gave the company less than five months to prepare for trial on the original charges, and even less time to defend against the charges Justice later added. And once the trial had been held and the time came for determining appropriate remedies, Jackson rubber-stamped what Justice proposed, making not a single material change. Microsoft was to be split into two companies designed by government lawyers, and its business practices were to be tightly regulated for at least three years, possibly ten. Jackson heard no evidence on the efficacy of these remedies, and, despite a promise to do so, he offered Microsoft no opportunity to research their impact.

During and after the trial Jackson granted "friendly, informal and unstructured" interviews to the New York Times. He also commented on Microsoft's legal strategy and the integrity of company witnesses to the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, and CNN. That publicity blitz ignored the clear mandate of Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to 11 avoid public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action.. until completion of the appellate process."

Jackson thus presided over a trial that denied Microsoft basic fairness-what the lawyers call due process. But this was not the worst of it. Like any trial judge, Jackson had to engage in fact-finding and make conclusions of law based on those findings before proceeding to the remedies stage. But Jackson didn't prove equal to these tasks. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Antitrust for Dummies
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.