What are you talking about?

Then why does this trial have a remedy phase? Why has there never been any mention of a penalty phase, a punishment phase, or a sentencing phase?

The remedy phase IS the sentencing phase.

Microsoft has been found guilty of a civil infraction. Their punishment IS the remedy.

Why has Microsoft been given the right to participate in the process of hammering out a solution - and even the right to try to settle the case - after they were found to have violated antitrust law?

Parties in civil cases are always allowed to settle out of court. If they do not settle out of court, the court is allowed to assess damages upon the defendant if they lose.

Why is this a civil action rather than a criminal one?

Because antitrust law is part of the civil code (or whatever the phrase is). What does this have to do with anything?

Have you never heard of damages being assessed in civil cases? WTF were the OJ civil trial damages?

Damages CAN be assessed in this case. Any number of questions you ask out of ignorance of that fact are immaterial.

In fact, the biggest problem MS may face are the ongoing civil suits that are sure to follow if the DOJ folds, because as I said damages are tripled in antitrust cases.

IANAL, etc.

Scott, thanks for your interesting reply.

Then why does this trial have a remedy phase? Why has there never been
any mention of a penalty phase, a punishment phase, or a sentencing phase?

The remedy phase IS the sentencing phase. Microsoft has been found
guilty of a civil infraction. Their punishment IS the remedy. [...]

Parties in civil cases are always allowed to settle out of court. If
they do not settle out of court, the court is allowed to assess damages upon
the defendant if they lose.

Hmmm... I thought there was a difference, at least in the case of antitrust,
between remedies and punishment. There is certainly a huge difference in the
common usage of those words. Maybe that's why I'm puzzled as to why so many
people were expecting punishment during the trial's remedy phase, and are
now outraged at the lack of punishment in the deal. Is this one of those
artificial criminal/civil guilty/liable distinctions we all learned about during
the OJ case? In any case, can the government plausibly claim that it was
damaged by Microsoft's violations?

Why is this a civil action rather than a criminal one?

Because antitrust law is part of the civil code (or whatever the phrase
is). What does this have to do with anything?

Well, if you look around, you'll see lots of people calling Microsoft, its
executives, and now even DoJ officials criminals. The question they often
raise is, "Since when do criminals get to settle after they've been found
guilty?" Would you then call that an ignorant question? Should it be rephrased
as "Since when do civil infractors get to settle after they've been found
liable?"

Damages CAN be assessed in this case. Any number of questions you ask out of ignorance of that fact are immaterial. In fact, the biggest problem MS may face are the ongoing civil suits that are sure to follow if the DOJ folds, because as I said damages are tripled in antitrust cases.

I understand. Most of the rulings that survived appeal seem to have to do
with OEM contracts. It'll be interesting to see how many OEMs end up suing
Microsoft. Do you think AOL/Netscape will sue Microsoft over "code commingling"?
Will ISVs sue Microsoft over their apparent attempts to deceive them regarding
Java?

Welcome to IWETHEY!