Microsoft likely to avoid split
Published: 28 Feb 2001 08:28 GMT
During a second day of hearings into Microsoft's appeal of a breakup order issued last year, Microsoft attorney Richard Urowsky argued that US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson showed a bias against the company in comments made to reporters during and after the trial.
"What the statements suggest is actual bias," Urowsky said, noting that some of the media interviews took place before Jackson's final ruling. The judges discounted whether Jackson displayed actual bias and instead noted that just an "appearance" of bias was enough to warrant his removal.
Following the trial's conclusion last June, Jackson's statements began appearing in news stories and books about the case. His views on Microsoft executives and the metaphors he used to describe the case troubled the appeals judges.
In one article, Jackson said Microsoft founder Bill Gates "has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses." He added that company executives "don't act like grown-ups!"
"There are lots of things we think and feel about" the parties during a proceeding, said Chief Judge Harry Edwards. "[But] we have to be careful about the metaphors we use."
Jackson determined last year that Microsoft abused its monopoly in the market for PC operating system software to unfairly squelch competition in the browser market from Netscape Communications. Microsoft appealed the decision, leading to Monday's and Tuesday's hearings by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
A decision on the appeal is expected by April or May. Based on criticism concerning Jackson's decision and his comments about Microsoft, at least one law expert said Tuesday he is certain that portions of the breakup order are likely to be overturned or thrown back to the trial court.
In addition, the appellate judge's harsh criticism of Jackson's comments could cause his removal from the case, which would mean that any portions sent back to the trial court would be heard by another judge.
John Roberts, an attorney representing the US government and 19 states that brought the antitrust suit against Microsoft, conceded that Jackson's comments were "wrong" but argued that they did not merit his removal from the case.
That did not satisfy Edwards, who expressed what seemed to be the sentiment of five, possibly six, of the judges when he said that if Jackson's "comments to reporters do raise a question of bias...then recusal is required."
The judges were especially concerned that Jackson made statements during the trial but asked reporters not to print the quotes until after the case's conclusion.
"His embargo makes his comments worse," Randolf said. If the comments were released during trial, "he would have been off this case in a minute."
The severe questioning of Jackson's comments and his decision led some experts to conclude that Microsoft stands a good chance of having parts of the breakup order overturned or sent back to the trial court.
"Overall, things did not go well for the government," said law professor Kovacic, who concluded that the court will rip up Jackson's 1999 "findings of fact." The findings, which are a judge's distillation of what was proven true at trial, is typically sacrosanct.
"It's clear Jackson will not get the benefit of the doubt typically afforded trial judges," Kovacic said. There is "absolutely no way" that Microsoft will be broken up.
Have your say instantly, and see what others have said. Click on the TalkBack button and go to the Microsoft forum.
Let the editors know what you think in the Mailroom. And read what others have said.
Did you find this article useful?
19 out of 69 people found this useful
- Share this article:
