Former U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson is still ranting about Microsoft antitrust issues, even after the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that he “seriously tainted the proceedings” after his June 2000 ruling which demanded the split of Microsoft into two companies. The question that must be asked is why CNet is covering the opinions of such an overtly biased and clearly disgraceful attorney who represents everything the U.S. court system should work to avoid.
No doubt, CNet is taking advantage of the anti-Microsoft sentiment that whips open-source hackers into frenzy and drives the news.com hit-counter through the roof. Certainly, Jackson’s ignorant ramblings are hardly worth reporting. Nearly everything he says aloud demonstrates his lack of judicial qualifications. For example CNet quotes Jackson stating:
"Microsoft persona I had been shown throughout the trial was one of militant defiance, unapologetic for its past behavior and determined to continue as before. …Nothing has changed, to my observation, in the five years that have elapsed since my decision... "
This statement alone demonstrates his significant lack of qualification. Lets quickly dissect it.
A persona of militant defiance: Defiance of what? If Microsoft is not found guilty, they are not in defiance of any law.
Since Jackson’s illegal behavior deemed him unfit to rule on the case, he certainly can’t claim that Microsoft is guilty of any crime. Defiant in the face of Microsoft’s competitors? Perhaps. But when did that become illegal?
Unapologetic for past behavior: Jackson, you fool. Until a party is found guilty they have nothing to apologize for. Business is harsh, and it doesn’t need a stodgy old kodger like you to suggest that the accused should act apologetically before being found guilty.
An apology before a ruling would be admitting guilt. Just because Jackson believed that Microsoft was guilty from Day 1 does not make it so. It would have been a huge error in legal strategy for Microsoft to apologize for anything.
Determined to Continue as Before: This is not a crime, Mr. Jackson. Until a party is found guilty, continuing their past behavior is not a crime.
Since Jackson is legally unfit to rule on the Microsoft case, this comment clearly represents his bias.
Nothing has changed: You got it, Mr. Biased Former Judge. Microsoft was not found guilty, which means their only obligation to change is detailed in the settlement that was agreed upon. Microsoft doesn’t care what you think and neither should the American people. Contrary to what your ego-driven attitude may lead you to believe, your opinions are not law.
Unfortunately, Jackson keeps flapping his gums, making himself appear more and more ignorant:
“Netscape Navigator, if it is still available at all, has only a small fraction of the browser market."
If? IF?? Netscape Navigator is not only still available; it now competes alongside many alternate browsers like Opera and FireFox. Furthermore, there is no guaranteed right for Netscape to have more than a small fraction of the browser market if they are unable to compete. Jackson is ranting about a field of technology that he clearly doesn’t understand. He has no knowledge of the browser market, yet is trying to rule that Microsoft is competing unfairly. Too bad he doesn’t even know who the competitors in this industry are! No wonder he was replaced by Kollar-Kotelly.
There is certainly no reason to rehash the entire case at this point. It was settled, and Microsoft’s competitors launched round two in the EU court system. Instead, it is more relevant to wonder why CNet is giving Jackson’s opinions any credit at all.
Lets review a few quotes from the media that were released by the media after the final judgment was finally announced.
Kollar-Kotelly approved the proposed settlement with few additions, rejecting a call by the nonsettling states for stiffer sanctions. In a strongly worded decision, Kollar-Kotelly said that the remedies proposed by the plaintiff states were so outlandish that they amounted to an "unjustified manipulation of the marketplace" designed to give competitors such as Sun Microsystems, Apple Computer, and Red Hat an "artificial advantage."
"Microsoft's competitors appear to be those who most desire these provisions and, concomitantly, are the likely beneficiaries of these provisions, while other competitors in the relevant market would not necessarily benefit. In bringing these types of proposals before the court, (the states) again misunderstand the task presently before the court," Kollar-Kotelly wrote.
Richard Green, a vice president at rival Sun Microsystems, testified during the remedy hearing in March that Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine was unfairly incompatible with his employer's. But Kollar-Kotelly said Sun's complaints were merely an attempt to attack a competitor. "The incompatibility of Microsoft's JVM is a non-issue...Mr. Green's testimony is revealed as little more than an attempt to advance Sun-compliant Java technologies through this proceeding," the judge wrote.
Kollar-Kotelly also took issue with the states' idea of auctioning off rights to port Microsoft Office to other operating systems:
"If Red Hat purchases one of the auctioned Office licenses, as it plans, Red Hat will benefit from Microsoft's twenty years of heavy investment in Microsoft Office," she said. "Red Hat would receive this benefit despite the fact that it has not devoted any effort or money to the development of an office productivity suite to compete with Microsoft Office and run on Linux."
"The competitors were acting unreasonably, and they still are. They're saying this is outrageous since they'd like this to go on forever."
W.S.