When the Econonist publishes an article like this, you know that the inital media blitz proclaiming that Microsoft "won" is officially declared to be bogus and erroneous. I think most of us here came to that conclusion within a few hours of hearing the first headlines. ("

[link|http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=687513|Guilty]

Jul 7th 2001
From The Economist print edition

The appeals court\ufffds ruling shows that it was right to sue Microsoft

Was the suit against Microsoft a waste of time, money and effort, that served only to sap the energy of one of America\ufffds largest and most innovative firms? Undoubtedly, the decision by the Department of Justice and 19 states to launch an antitrust suit against Microsoft in 1998 was controversial from the start. Critics argued that rules designed to regulate 19th-century smokestack industries could not be applied to the computer business. Microsoft denied that it held a monopoly, and argued that it was simply competing hard in a dynamic, highly innovative industry. Regulators, the company argued, had no right to determine which features software companies should include in their products. When the case came before an appeals court in February, the judges\ufffd harsh questioning of the government\ufffds lawyers appeared to support the view that the entire case might even be dropped and Microsoft acquitted of any wrongdoing.

It was not. Instead, on June 29th the seven appeals-court judges unanimously ruled that Microsoft holds a monopoly in PC operating-system software, and that it repeatedly and unlawfully used its market dominance to protect that monopoly.