[ale] OT [Fwd: [Am-info] U.S. v Microsoft -- The Decision]

[Wandered Inn]

> http://ecfp.cadc.uscourts.gov
> 
> Before:EDWARDS, Chief Judge , WILLIAMS, GINSBURG,
> SENTELLE, RANDOLPH, ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges .
> Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam .
> Per Curiam :Microsoft Corporation appeals from judg-
> ments of the District Court finding the company in violation
> of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and ordering various
> remedies.
> The action against Microsoft arose pursuant to a complaint
> filed by the United States and separate complaints filed by
> individual States. The District Court determined that Micro-
> soft had maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel-
> compatible PC operating systems in violation of §2;attempt-
> ed to gain a monopoly in the market for internet browsers in
> violation of §2;and illegally tied two purportedly separate
> products, Windows and Internet Explorer (??IE ¹¹), in violation
> of §1. United States v. Microsoft Corp. , 87 F. Supp. 2d 30
> (D. D. C. 2000)(??Conclusions of Law ¹¹). The District Court
> then found that the same facts that established liability under
> §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act mandated findings of liability
> under analogous state law antitrust provisions. Id . To rem-
> edy the Sherman Act violations, the District Court issued a
> Final Judgment requiring Microsoft to submit a proposed
> plan of divestiture, with the company to be split into an
> operating systems business and an applications business.
> United States v. Microsoft Corp . , 97 F. Supp. 2d 59, 64 ­65
> (D. D. C. 2000)(??Final Judgment ¹¹). The District Court ¹s re-
> medial order also contains a number of interim restrictions on
> Microsoft ¹s conduct. Id . at 66 ­69.
> Microsoft ¹s appeal contests both the legal conclusions and
> the resulting remedial order. There are three principal
> aspects of this appeal. First, Microsoft challenges the Dis-
> trict Court ¹s legal conclusions as to all three alleged antitrust
> violations and also a number of the procedural and factual
> foundations on which they rest. Second, Microsoft argues
> that the remedial order must be set aside, because the
> District Court failed to afford the company an evidentiary
> hearing on disputed facts and, also, because the substantive
> provisions of the order are flawed. Finally, Microsoft asserts
> that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging
> in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate 6
> public comments on the merits of the case while it was
> pending. Microsoft argues that these ethical violations com-
> promised the District Judge ¹s appearance of impartiality,
> thereby necessitating his disqualification and vacatur of his
> Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Judgment.
> After carefully considering the voluminous record on ap-
> peal ?including the District Court ¹s Findings of Fact and
> Conclusions of Law, the testimony and exhibits submitted at
> trial, the parties ¹briefs, and the oral arguments before this
> court ?we find that some but not all of Microsoft ¹s liability
> challenges have merit. Accordingly, we affirm in part and
> reverse in part the District Court ¹s judgment that Microsoft
> violated §2 of the Sherman Act by employing anticompetitive
> means to maintain a monopoly in the operating system mar-
> ket;we reverse the District Court ¹s determination that Mi-
> crosoft violated §2 of the Sherman Act by illegally attempt-
> ing to monopolize the internet browser market;and we
> remand the District Court ¹s finding that Microsoft violated
> §1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully tying its browser to its
> operating system. Our judgment extends to the District
> Court ¹s findings with respect to the state law counterparts of
> the plaintiffs ¹Sherman Act claims.
> We also find merit in Microsoft ¹s challenge to the Final
> Judgment embracing the District Court ¹s remedial order.
> There are several reasons supporting this conclusion. First,
> the District Court ¹s Final Judgment rests on a number of
> liability determinations that do not survive appellate review;
> therefore, the remedial order as currently fashioned cannot
> stand. Furthermore, we would vacate and remand the reme-
> dial order even were we to uphold the District Court ¹s
> liability determinations in their entirety, because the District
> Court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to address reme-
> dies-specific factual disputes.
> Finally, we vacate the Final Judgment on remedies, be-
> cause the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte
> contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the
> media and made numerous offensive comments about Micro-
> soft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom,
> giving rise to an appearance of partiality. Although we find
> no evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial
> judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the District
> Court and called into question the integrity of the judicial
> process. We are therefore constrained to vacate the Final
> Judgment on remedies, remand the case for reconsideration
> of the remedial order, and require that the case be assigned
> to a different trial judge on remand. We believe that this
> disposition will be adequate to cure the cited improprieties.
> In sum, for reasons more fully explained below, we affirm
> in part, reverse in part, and remand in part the District
> Court ¹s judgment assessing liability. We vacate in full the
> Final Judgment embodying the remedial order and remand
> the case to a different trial judge for further proceedings
> consistent with this opinion.

--
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at denali.atlnet.com

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds.
The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit
to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his
intelligence." - Albert Einstein
--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.