Fresh antitrust action starts against Microsoft

[YKhan]

Tangent Computer Inc. has filed this suit. Not sure who they are.

Fresh antitrust action starts against Microsoft
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29797

"After running through the history of the PC, Tangent alleges that
Microsoft has still failed to comply with a number of instructions and
continues to violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C., §2."

"Tangent wants a jury trial."

It seems like these days it's become de rigueur in anti-trust cases to
write a history of the PC industry and then ask for a jury trial, after
AMD did it.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Keith]

Tangent Computer Inc. has filed this suit. Not sure who they are.

Fresh antitrust action starts against Microsoft
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29797

"After running through the history of the PC, Tangent alleges that
Microsoft has still failed to comply with a number of instructions and
continues to violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C., §2."
Duh!

"Tangent wants a jury trial."

I never understood why companies were so affraid of jury trials. Sure,
jurries are fickle, but judges aren't?

It seems like these days it's become de rigueur in anti-trust cases to
write a history of the PC industry and then ask for a jury trial, after
AMD did it.

I think it's more of a reaction to weak-knee'd judges. See: DOJ vs. M$
(though the issue was silly too)

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I think it's more of a reaction to weak-knee'd judges. See: DOJ vs. M$
(though the issue was silly too)

Yeah, what was that about specifically? I can't even remember right now.
For some reason I have Netscape in my head. Was it about the Netscape
vanquishment? I can remember more important companies than Netscape
being killed or relegated to the scrapheap by Microsoft. There was
Quarterdeck, Lotus, Ashton-Tate, Borland, Novell, Corel, etc. Netscape
was very minor compared to them.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Joe Pfeiffer]

I never understood why companies were so affraid of jury trials. Sure,
jurries are fickle, but judges aren't?

I think claiming you want a jury trial is necessary; at least it's
customary. Nobody (neither plaintiff nor defendant) actually wants a
jury trial if they're even vaguely sane; what they want is a
settlement. That way they can negotiate and come to an
understanding. I don't remember the numbers, but only a tiny fraction
of lawsuits go to trial; there's enough history that both sides can
make a good guess as to their odds and just hand over the money. The
ones that come to trial are where there is a big disagreement on what
those odds are, or companies like SCO.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

I never understood why companies were so affraid of jury
trials. Sure, jurries are fickle, but judges aren't?

Judges tend to be fickle towards the cheap end of the scale.
Juries are the ones who hand out the highest awards.
Plaintiffs almost always ask for jury trials, hoping for
a sympathy award and/or punitive damages. Judges are more
worried about withstanding appeal and how their rulings look.

A jury trial ups the ante by creating more uncertainty.
Defendants settle to reduce undertainty.

-- Robert

 

[Keith]

Yeah, what was that about specifically? I can't even remember right now.
For some reason I have Netscape in my head. Was it about the Netscape
vanquishment? I can remember more important companies than Netscape
being killed or relegated to the scrapheap by Microsoft. There was
Quarterdeck, Lotus, Ashton-Tate, Borland, Novell, Corel, etc. Netscape
was very minor compared to them.

Exactly. The focus was on the browser, which was a symptom not the
disease. By the time the case was over Netscape was no longer important
and everyone lost interest in the cancer. ...much like terrorism.

 

[Keith]

I think claiming you want a jury trial is necessary; at least it's
customary. Nobody (neither plaintiff nor defendant) actually wants a
jury trial if they're even vaguely sane; what they want is a
settlement. That way they can negotiate and come to an
understanding.

Of course, but why, when things get to the trial phase do they wimp out?
The "common knowledge" is that jurries can't understand teh complications
of the case. My point is that judges apparently don't either. Remember,
either party can request a jury trial (or rather the contrapositive).

I don't remember the numbers, but only a tiny fraction
of lawsuits go to trial; there's enough history that both sides can make
a good guess as to their odds and just hand over the money.

Th question is how much and what goes with it. This isn't just a coupla
broken bones.

The ones that come to trial are where there is a big disagreement on
what those odds are, or companies like SCO.

....or Intel.

 

[Keith]

Judges tend to be fickle towards the cheap end of the scale.
Juries are the ones who hand out the highest awards.

But do either understand? My point is that both parties have to waive a
jury trial. Why? ...if you have something to win?

Plaintiffs almost always ask for jury trials, hoping for a sympathy
award and/or punitive damages. Judges are more worried about
withstanding appeal and how their rulings look.

....but *BOTH* parties have to waive a jury trial for it to be decided by
a judge. Why?

A jury trial ups the ante by creating more uncertainty. Defendants
settle to reduce undertainty.

Ah, HA! Isn't it to the advantage of the plantif to create uncertainty,
given the possibility of settlement? OTOH, sometimes the monitary awards
are secondary. AMD is looking sshine light on Intel's marketing, not
walk away with a few sheckles (though that would be good too).

 

[David Kanter]

Of course, but why, when things get to the trial phase do they wimp out?
The "common knowledge" is that jurries can't understand teh complications
of the case. My point is that judges apparently don't either. Remember,
either party can request a jury trial (or rather the contrapositive).

That's just the way the world works. People don't want their dirty
laundry aired for public consumption. Basically, the way a lot of
antitrust suits work is that they get past summary judgment to the 2nd
or 3rd discovery phase and then settle.

Part of the issue is that insurance does not cover antitrust related
settlements or verdicts, since that is a criminal offense. Insurance
does cover things like class action law suits.


DK

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

But do either understand?

Actually, I think both do, at least to some extent. Trials are
horrible processes. Very exhausting. The chielf limitation
is that judges _know_ they're appointed and have restricted
legitimacy. So act with considerable restraint. Juries feel
more empowered by the lottery.

My point is that both parties have
to waive a jury trial. Why? ...if you have something to win?

I think defendants would in most civil cases be happy to waive
a jury trial.

...but *BOTH* parties have to waive a jury trial for it to
be decided by a judge. Why?

7th Amendment calls for trial by jury for over $20.

Ah, HA! Isn't it to the advantage of the plantif to
create uncertainty, given the possibility of settlement?
Certainly!

OTOH, sometimes the monitary awards are secondary. AMD is
looking sshine light on Intel's marketing, not walk away
with a few sheckles (though that would be good too).

Sure. There can be many motives to sue.

-- Robert

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

Exactly. The focus was on the browser, which was a symptom not the
disease. By the time the case was over Netscape was no longer important
and everyone lost interest in the cancer. ...much like terrorism.

Unfortunately, the delay was as good as a victory for MS.

-- Robert

 

[Keith]

Unfortunately, the delay was as good as a victory for MS.

Precisely, but only because M$ was successful in drawing the
attention to the symptom rather than the disease. I blame that in
incompetent judges and prosecutors. A jury might not have helped, but it
couldn't have been much worse. I see this as *the* big reason for AMD to
try a jury trial.

 

[Keith]

Actually, I think both do, at least to some extent.

You give them far more credit than do I. History, I think, vindicates my
opinion.

Trials are
horrible processes. Very exhausting. The chielf limitation is that
judges _know_ they're appointed and have restricted legitimacy. So act
with considerable restraint. Juries feel more empowered by the lottery.

So why wouldn't a plantif spin the wheel? Clearly the M$ boondoggle
showed that trial by judge didn't help.

I think defendants would in most civil cases be happy to waive a jury
trial.

Defendants, sure, but why the plantif?

7th Amendment calls for trial by jury for over $20.

*Both* sides must agree to waive the 7th. Perhaps I haven't made myself
clear.

Sure. There can be many motives to sue.

So let me go back, why the fear of a jury? Obviously a jury will be
incompentent in a highly technical trial, but I don't see judges being any
better. Perhaps if judges needed technical degrees (like patent lawyers)...

 

[Keith]

That's just the way the world works. People don't want their dirty
laundry aired for public consumption. Basically, the way a lot of
antitrust suits work is that they get past summary judgment to the 2nd
or 3rd discovery phase and then settle.

If *you* have no laundry that you're embarrased about, why not let the
sunlight shine on the other guy's?

Part of the issue is that insurance does not cover antitrust related
settlements or verdicts, since that is a criminal offense. Insurance
does cover things like class action law suits.

So, you're saying that AMD wants a nice check and then let things go back
to the way they were?

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

You give them far more credit than do I. History, I think,
vindicates my opinion.

You have some examples? We've discussed McDonalds overhot
coffee. The judge and/or jury can only decide on what's in
evidence, and sometimes one side or the other is successful in
excluding evidence. Not as often as the media does The law
is also complex, so sometimes a ruling that seems nonsensical
from one viewpoint makes perfect sense from another.

So why wouldn't a plantiff spin the wheel? Clearly the M$
boondoggle showed that trial by judge didn't help.

Plaintiff's usually _do_ spin the wheel by going for juries.
M$ went for a judge 'cuz it was safer for them. AFAIK, DAs
never insist on a jury trial. They want to appear to give
the defendant every chance.

Defendants, sure, but why the plantif?

Plaintiffs are the ones usually asking for juries.

*Both* sides must agree to waive the 7th. Perhaps I haven't
made myself clear.

No, I understand. Do you have a case where the plaintiff
waived jury? That might happen where the plaintiff perceived
themselves unsympathetic [big] compared to the defendant [little].

So let me go back, why the fear of a jury?

'cuz they might hand out higher awards and penalties.
A judge will look at what will survive appeal. A jury won't.
And probably feels more empowered.

Obviously a jury will be incompentent in a highly technical
trial, but I don't see judges being any better.

No, they're not. But do not need to be technically competant.
Just capable of being educated. I haven't seen a case
that actually requires any technical knowledge. The law is
about deciding meaning and intent. Not quantum tunnelling.
But often one side or the other flubs their education, and
misses some crucial explanations.

Perhaps if judges needed technical degrees (like patent
lawyers)...

Engineers are routinely excluded from juries.
They bring information outside of evidence.

-- Robert

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

Precisely, but only because M$ was successful in drawing the
attention to the symptom rather than the disease. I blame
that in incompetent judges and prosecutors. A jury might
not have helped, but it couldn't have been much worse.

Agreed about the jury, but I didn't see the judge or DoJ as
unusually incompetant. M$ gamed the system for maximum delay.
Calculated non-compliance just short of incurring serious penalty.
Their standard MO of sharp practice. Both the judge and DoJ saw it,
but were powerless within the time-not-critical courtroom tradition.

I see this as *the* big reason for AMD to try a jury trial.

No, they're likely to garner sympathy as the underdog.
And Intels alleged faults (if proven) are pretty easy to understand.

-- Robert

 

[Keith]

Agreed about the jury, but I didn't see the judge or DoJ as
unusually incompetant.

I certainly did. The dim-bulbs were focusing on *exactly* the wrong
things. ...the the judge opened is big fat mouth.

M$ gamed the system for maximum delay.

No question.

Calculated non-compliance just short of incurring serious penalty. Their
standard MO of sharp practice. Both the judge and DoJ saw it, but were
powerless within the time-not-critical courtroom tradition.

Come on, the judge could have issued an injunction (or threatended to).
The case was a cluster-fsck from the get-go.

No, they're likely to garner sympathy as the underdog. And Intels
alleged faults (if proven) are pretty easy to understand.

Watch them do a Gates!

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

I certainly did. The dim-bulbs were focusing on *exactly*
the wrong things.

What should they have focussed on? They made a strong case for the
browser being bundled. And won. And the ruling survived appeal,
at least the findings did. Penalties did not.

...the the judge opened is big fat mouth.

This was a bit unfortunate, but I'm not sure what would have
happened had Jackson kept quiet. MS would be looking to replace
him, and pushing hard. And probably would have got it, since
that ruling was positively and deservedly scorching. But it would
have taken time, which is what MS wanted. He recused himself in
an unconventional manner.

Come on, the judge could have issued an injunction (or
threatended to).

For what, pray tell? Remedies were always the hard part with MS.
And still are. I don't think he could have ordered MS to stop
distributing MS-IE. I don't think the law gives that power
(takings). That's why the DoJ prefers consent orders. The Euros are
still having trouble getting MS to unbundle. They are still playing
the technical two-step, and no-one can fine them enough to stop.

Watch them do a Gates!

Intel is totally different, and I don't think even can.
Far too ethical. They make mistakes, but it isn't in their blood.

-- Robert

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Unfortunately, the delay was as good as a victory for MS.

I don't think any kind of delaying tactics by Intel in this case is
going to help. The enemy that Intel has now, is the same enemy that it
had 10 years ago, and the same as the one from 20 years ago (30 years
ago they were friends). In MS's case, it could afford to delay because
its opponents would drop off like flies with each delay. Intel has had
one long-term enemy for decades now, who is not going away. So a
delaying tactic would only result in meeting with the exact same enemy
later.

Yousuf Khan