Microsoft lost in federal court, but, according to
Nickelsburg, they successfully appealed the decision.
That is incorrect.
U.S. v. Microsoft Decision
U.S. District Judge Thomas Jackson
ruled that Microsoft violated the Sherman Anti-trust Act
and ordered the company to be broken into two entities.
Nickelsburg is right that Microsoft appealed the decision,
but not right about their success.
The appellate court overturned only the remedy, that the
company should be broken up.
It did not overturn the finding of fact, that Microsoft
exercised an illegal monopoly in the software market.
Monica Nickelsburg, KUOW Labor & Economy Reporter
At the very least, Nickelsburg should have qualified her
statement by noting that Microsoft’s appeal was only partly
successful.
But even that would be very misleading without acknowledging
that the anti-trust violation –
the reason the case was relevant to the Amazon discussion –
was upheld.
I first heard the piece on the radio, and, unable to find
a recording or transcript on
KUOW’s
website, I wrote about it based on what I remembered
hearing.
Just yesterday, I found a
web version of the interview complete with audio.
Listening to it anew, I have to admit that my memory does
not really jive with the recording.
I’ve added audio of the interview in the
original post
so you can hear for yourself.
Here’s what
Nickelsburg
said:
The government won its lawsuit, and forced Microsoft
to be split up.
Now, that decision was overturned on appeal, so
Microsoft was not split up.
The unsuspecting listener might think the verdict
was overturned – in the context of the judiciary,
that’s how that word is generally used.
As I wrote in my original post, the appeals court did
not overturn the verdict.
It only set aside the decision to split up the company
and sent the case back to federal court – not to be
retried, but to redetermine what would happen to
Microsoft.
The tech company continued to fight the case through
the 2000 election, which Republican George W. Bush won.
And his
attorney general
made a
controversial decision
to
settle the case
without requiring that it be split up.
I still think that Nicklesburg could have been clearer.
But her comments were not as obviously misleading as I
first wrote.
webmentions
add your webmention
Mention, like, or reply to this article from your site using
webmentions.
And if you do, let me know.
Enter the url of your page in the form
below and send it to me.