BTrem

Microsoft Antitrust Suit

updated:

Bill Gates testifies in anti-trust deposition, 1998

On September 26, KUOW’s local “All Things Considered” host Kim Malcolm and reporter Monica Nickelsburg discussed the lawsuit against Amazon filed by the Federal Trade Commision. During the segment, Malcolm asked Nickelsburg about previous anti-trust cases, including a 1998 case brought by the Department of Justice against Microsoft.

Why hasn't Washington state joined the federal antitrust case against Amazon?

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.

Updates

KUOW Replies

KUOW’s assistant news director Jason Pagano replied to my email criticizing KUOW’s discussion of a Microsoft antitrust lawsuit:

[T]hank you for writing - I’ve shared this with Monica and the ATC team.

The acknowledgement arrived in my inbox at , about two hours after I sent the email. Good on him for the quick reply.

Upon Further Listening...

I’m revising my September, 2023 criticism of KUOW for its coverage of a Justice Department lawsuit against Microsoft.

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.