The Wall Street Journal also has an interview with Jackson, Judge says Microsoft damaged its own credibility in court:
The judge himself explains:“Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,” he says, citing a Latin aphorism meaning, “Untrue in one thing, untrue in everything.”
“I don’t subscribe to that as absolutely true,” the judge says. “But it does lead one to suspicion. It’s a universal human experience. If someone lies to you once, how much else can you credit as the truth?”
In an extraordinary interview for a sitting federal judge, Judge Jackson made it clear that Microsoft’s credibility problems in the courtroom compromised its defense and contributed significantly to the judge’s decision Wednesday to break the company in two and impose stiff restrictions on Microsoft’s business practices...
"I had to make judgments about the credibility of witnesses, and I found some of them more credible than others,” he said. Judge Jackson declined to cite specific instances during the trial, and he gingerly stepped around legal issues that might arise on appeal. But he did add, “Things did not start well for them.” In the interview, Judge Jackson said, “I have to make judgments about motives and credibility all the time... . And it was quite clear to me that the motive of Microsoft in bundling the Internet browser was not one of consumer convenience. The evidence that this was done for the consumer was not credible... . The evidence was so compelling that there was an ulterior motive.”...
But the judge rejected the appellate court’s admonition in the June 1998 ruling that courts shouldn’t get involved in how software works. “I may not be equipped to make judgments about software design, but I am equipped to judge what a particular design is, in terms of its economic effect.”
Judge Jackson also dismissed Microsoft’s complaints that it wasn’t given time to argue against a breakup and that his decision not to allow that time violated proper procedure. He said, “it’s procedurally unusual to do what Microsoft is proposing — are you aware of very many cases in which the defendant can argue with the jury about what an appropriate sanction should be? Were the Japanese allowed to propose the terms of their surrender? The government won the case.”
posted by steve rhodes 6/8/2000 12:37:13 PM
On Nightline, Koppel seemed to be asking Bill Gates tough questions. But he didn't ask critical questions about specific actions that Judge Jackson ruled had broken the law. Nor did he ask if microsoft wants to innovate, so many of their products take what a truly innovative company has done and use their market dominance in other areas to establish their own product (it would have been a perfect follow-up after Gates mentioned the Mac lawsuit). Or why if they want to serve their custumers, their software crashes so often. Or why their new Pocket PC won't work with a mac or linux.Gates and other people from Microsoft keep on saying they want to innovate and serve their custumers and journalists keep failing to point out that they do neither.
The Washington Post has an interview with Judge Jackson. Andrew Leonard has an excellent piece on Salon, Microsoft owes everything to Justice on the impact the anti-trust case against IBM had on Microsoft. And he co-wrote a piece on the decision with Janelle Brown.
As I write this, Slate doesn't have anything up about the decision. The diary this week by Bill Flannigan of VH1 is pretty interesting though.
posted by steve rhodes 6/8/2000 1:49:06 AM
Wednesday, June 7, 2000
The ruling on Microsoft has been issued. You can read it in HTML and PDF. It is being discussed on all of the news channels and will be a major topic on the Newshour on PBS and Nightline. The Jusitice department and Microsoft are expected to have press conferences shortly. From the decision:Microsoft claims, in effect, to have been surprised by the "draconian" and "unprecedented" remedy the plaintiffs recommend. What it proposes is yet another round of discovery, to be followed by a second trial - in essence an ex post and de facto bifurcation of the case already considered and rejected by the Court.Microsoft's profession of surprise is not credible... It has also reluctantly come to the conclusion, for the same reasons, that a structural remedy has become imperative: Microsoft as it is presently organized and led is unwilling to accept the notion that it broke the law or accede to an order amending its conduct.
First, despite the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Microsoft does not yet concede that any of its business practices violated the Sherman Act. Microsoft officials have recently been quoted publicly to the effect that the company has "done nothing wrong" and that it will be vindicated on appeal. The Court is well aware that there is a substantial body of public opinion, some of it rational, that holds to a similar view. It is time to put that assertion to the test...
Second, there is credible evidence in the record to suggest that Microsoft, convinced of its innocence, continues to do business as it has in the past, and may yet do to other markets what it has already done in the PC operating system and browser markets. Microsoft has shown no disposition to voluntarily alter its business protocol in any significant respect. Indeed, it has announced its intention to appeal even the imposition of the modest conduct remedies it has itself proposed as an alternative to the non-structural remedies sought by the plaintiffs.
Third, Microsoft has proved untrustworthy in the past. In earlier proceedings in which a preliminary injunction was entered, Microsoft's purported compliance with that injunction while it was on appeal was illusory and its explanation disingenuous. If it responds in similar fashion to an injunctive remedy in this case, the earlier the need for enforcement measures becomes apparent the more effective they are likely to be.
posted by steve rhodes 6/7/2000 3:49:11 PM
Jim Romenesko who does Medianews.org and Obscure Store has a piece, The Zine Zone.
posted by steve rhodes 6/7/2000 2:45:05 PM
Amnesty International has released a report (211K in PDF), "Collateral Damage" or Unlawful Killings? Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force. Robert Fisk of the Independent has a summary, NATO 'deliberately attacked civilians in Serbia.The crackdown on independent media in Serbia continues. Miroslav Filipovic is in military prison awaiting trial for articles like Serb Officers Relive Killings for the Institute For War & Peace Reporting. IWPR has a page with more information on his case.
posted by steve rhodes 6/7/2000 11:41:30 AM
Tuesday, June 6, 2000
Newsweek's June 12th cover story is The Death Penalty on Trial. Amnesty International has a website against the death penalty.Newsweek also has a roundtable on the state of publishing. Publishers Lunch has a page with articles on Book Expo.
The New York Times on Sunday started a series on race in America which will conclude with a special issue of the NYT Magazine.
posted by steve rhodes 6/6/2000 6:03:44 PM
Monday, June 5, 2000
Tonight's Nightline features a story by Robert Krulwich on how the universe might end. Earlier he did a program for Nightline on theories on intelligent life in the universe. There is web version of it.
posted by steve rhodes 6/5/2000 8:01:21 PM
posted by steve rhodes 6/5/2000 4:19:07 PM
Well Founded Fear, an award winning documentary on the INS, begins airing on POV on PBS tonight (though check your local listings since it may air another night - in Chicago, it is on Saturday, June 17th at 10 pm since it is currently pledge week). If even a small portion of the people watch this who watched Elian coverage, there would be a better understanding of immigration issues.The producers of Well Founded Fear and one of the INS officers profiled in it were interviewed on Fresh Air on May 5th. You can listen to the show in real audio. The Well Founded Fear website has a lot of material including a section that allows you to read case histories and decide if they should be granted asylum. The Sunday New York Times had an article, Telling Tales of Fear to a Wary Audience, on the documentary (the link will be good until sometime Saturday. June 10th). There was a positive review in the New York Daily News and an article, 'P.O.V.' Explores Anguish, Complexity of Political Asylum in the LA Times.
POV has a number of interesting documentaries this year including Butterfly (6-20) on Julia Butterfly, Dreamland (8-20) on Las Vegas by Lisanne Skyler and KPFA on the Air (9-19) on the history of the Berkeley community radio station.
posted by steve rhodes 6/5/2000 1:39:23 PM
Ursula K. LeGuin's Lathe of Heaven is airing on PBS stations in June for the first time in years along with an interview with her by Bill Moyers. There is a schedule of when it will air. If your local station isn't on it, check their website (since it might not be complete). It will be released on DVD and VHS in the fall. Current had an article as did TV Barn (scroll down a bit).LeGuin has a new novel in the Hanish Cycle, the telling, which is coming out in September from Harcourt.
posted by steve rhodes 6/5/2000 10:58:08 AM
Tiger Beat archive
Steve Rhodes' main page
