It was the right thing to do.

Post #42,967 by Andrew Grygus 6/19/02 11:53:16 PM Reply	It was the right thing to do. Given the judge's very evident favoritism toward Microsoft in her evidence rullings and other items, they would likely evaluate the situation thus: 20% she's going to rule for Microsoft / 80% she's laying the groundwork to have her way with Microsoft and have her way of having it. In the first case - no risk - it's in the bag! In the second case - no risk - they are bagged. I don't see how they could have done otherwise. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #42,995 by admin 6/20/02 10:00:17 AM Reply	John Lettice's take on it [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25812.html\|At The Register] Couple of good lines: There's really no answer to that if you've spent the entirety of the states' hearings out on the end of a branch with a saw. She has an acid little sting in the tail too: "As Defendant is well aware, its proposal has been criticized for 'exceptions which swallow the rule.'" Indeed. ... So you can see how the big train wreck happens. If CKK tosses the MS-DoJ deal or requires significant changes, then from Microsoft's point of view the deal could well be off. Which would mean its new friends at the DoJ would have to stop being friends and resume litigation - wouldn't that be an amusing process to observe, considering that its high command has gone on record as saying the negotiated deal is better than anything they could have achieved if they'd continued litigating? Dear oh dear. It is however possible that Microsoft believes something along those lines. Some of the states' proposals would certainly be painful for the company, but others could just about be accepted without the world ending. So if the company really won't deal, it must really think it can come out of the other end with something similar to, or even better than, the existing deal. Or it might just have myopia induced by a previous victory. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #43,016 by drewk 6/20/02 12:35:33 PM Reply	Interesting note Back in the days of the MS-DoJ consent decree, the one that the DoJ lashed up so badly that it subsequently wound up with the whole antitrust matter, Judge Stanley Sporkin revolted and refused to sign it off. ... Then, however, there weren't any pesky dissenting states. Microsoft and the DoJ had cut a deal, the judge was not supposed to be messing around trying to change it, he was just supposed to sign it and go away. So Mad Stan was removed, and an alternative judge signed the decree. One Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, as we recall... It seems any judge who deals with MS long enough eventually gets royally pissed off. Hmm, didn't someone suggest earlier in this round that MS's apparent strategy was to piss off CKK enough to get her tossed like TPJ did? Seems they've been using this tactic longer than we thought. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #43,024 by Andrew Grygus 6/20/02 1:18:34 PM Reply	No, it's not a new tactic They applied it very heavily at the begining of the antitrust trial, but Jackson kept his cool at the time. Unfortunately, he eventually broke down, but not before the conviction verdict was in. Microsoft knew they were in trouble with Jackson, because they made such a fool of him with the consent decree. Unfortunately, at the time of assigning retrial of the penalty phase, Sporkin was no longer with the court. I would have just loved to see his name picked in the random selection instead of CKK. Microsoft would have had a cow! [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]

Welcome to IWETHEY!