Rulings from a federal court can come down at almost any time, but high-profile rulings get special treatment. For example, if a ruling might affect the U.S. stock markets, the ruling might not be announced until after the markets' final bell for the day.
If the ruling is especially momentous--pro or con--then to avoid panicky or euphoric market reactions, the announcement might be delayed until after market close on a Friday, to give everyone the weekend to sort out the details and figure out a rational course of action.
Two weeks ago, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the judge presiding over the Microsoft-Department of Justice antitrust case, announced he would release his initial findings on a Friday, after 6:30 p.m. The judge apparently wants to avoid any stampede in Microsoft stock (pro or con), and with it, the whole technology sector.
The first Friday after the timing announcement came and went; the judge's office specifically said there'd be no ruling that week. There was no similar announcement last week, and many people geared up for the announcement--except the judge was silent.
Many people are betting that this Friday, Nov. 5, will be the day.
(Note: Whenever it happens, TechWeb will have extensive live coverage of the announcement and Microsoft's reaction: Check the TechWeb home page for the links. I will be on a panel of commentators who will listen to the full findings-of-fact announcement, the full Microsoft response, and then dig out the important nuggets of information from what is sure to be a barrage of verbiage.)
There are many main and subissues at stake, but three key areas Jackson will probably rule on are:
1) Is Microsoft legally a monopoly?
2) Has Microsoft illegally abused its monopoly position?
3) Specifically, has Microsoft illegally restrained Netscape by needlessly tying the Microsoft operating system and browser together?
I personally think the answers should be yes, yes, and no. In my opinion:
Yes, Microsoft is a de facto monopoly (note that it is not intrinsically evil, unethical, or illegal).
Yes, Microsoft did abuse its monopoly power, for example, in operating-system licensing to hardware vendors.
But no, I don't think Netscape can demonstrate real harm or illegal restraint: Netscape still has enormous market share and is still distributing its browser to millions of users. Many of Netscape's woes are entirely self-induced, and the company would have had trouble in the face of serious competition from any source--not just Microsoft.
But I suspect the judge will find this way: yes, yes, and yes--a sweep against Microsoft.
What's your take? InformationWeek Online has set up a straw poll where you can cast your vote and to see how your fellow readers are voting in answer to these questions:
| Do you believe Microsoft has: |
|
|
| Regardless of your personal beliefs, do you think the court will find Microsoft to have: |
|
|
After you've voted, check out our threaded chat for a discussion that will initially cover the straw poll results, and then switch to a discussion of the actual court findings, once they're announced. Join in!
