Het valt nogal mee. Het enige dat er gebeurt is dat de splitsing een heroverweging krijgt, omdat, volgens de rechtbank, er helemaal niet duidelijk is geworden of de splitsing wel tegen het monopolie zou helpen! Microsoft is verder gewoon schuldig bevonden aan de Sherman Act, d.i. het is een monopolie. Wat er gebeurt met dat monopolie is dus nog even afwachten.
Voor wie voldoende Engels begrijpt, onderstaande samenvatting uit de uitspraak:
I.INTRODUCTION
[...]
II.MONOPOLIZATION
[...] "The offense of monopolization has two elements: (1)the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2)the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product,business acumen,or historic accident." [...]
A. Monopoly Power
[...] "While merely possessing monopoly power is not itself an antitrust violation,[...] it is a necessary element of a monopolization charge [...] ...we uphold the District Court s finding of monopoly power in its entirety."
B. Anticompetitive Conduct
[some explanations of principles follow, then the court considers MS's objections]
B.1. Licenses Issued to Original Equipment Manufacturers
[...] "In sum,we hold that with the exception of the one restriction prohibiting automatically launched alternative interfaces,
all the OEM license restrictions at issue represent uses of Microsoft s market power to protect its monopoly,unredeemed by any legitimate justification.The restrictions therefore violate §2 of the Sherman Act."
B.2. Integration of IE and Windows
[...]
"Accordingly,Microsoft may not be held liable for this aspect of its product design."
B.3. Agreements with Internet Access Providers
[...]
"Accordingly,we affirm the District Court s deci-sion holding that Microsoft s exclusive contracts with IAPs are exclusionary devices,in violation of §2 of the Sherman Act."
B.4. Dealings with Internet Content Providers,Independent Software Vendors,and Apple Computer
[...]
Accordingly,we hold that the exclusive deal with Apple is exclusionary,in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act..
B.5. Java
B5.a.The incompatible JVM
[...] "Therefore,we reverse the District Court s imposition of liability for Microsoft s development and promotion of its JVM."
B5.b.The First Wave Agreements
[...] "we hold that the provisions in the First Wave Agreements requiring use of Microsoft s JVM as the default are exclusionary,in violation of the Sherman Act."
B5.c.Deception of Java developers
[...] "Accordingly,we conclude this conduct is exclusionary, in violation of §2 of the Sherman Act."
B5.d.The threat to Intel
[...] "Therefore we affirm the conclusion that Microsoft s threats to Intel were exclusionary,in violation of §2 of the Sherman Act."
B.6. Course of Conduct
[...] "Because the District Court identifies no other specific acts as a basis for course of conduct liability,we reverse its conclusion that Microsoft s course of conduct separately violates §2 of the Sherman Act."
C. Causation
"[...]Microsoft urges this court to reverse on the monopoly maintenance claim, because plaintiffs never
established a causal link between Microsoft s anticompetitive conduct, [...]and the maintenance of Microsoft s
operating system monopoly."
[...]
"We disagree."
III.ATTEMPTED MONOPOLIZATION
[...] "This,in turn,requires plaintiffs (1)to define the relevant market and (2)to demonstrate that substantial barriers to entry protect that market. Because plaintiffs have not carried their burden on either prong,we reverse without remand."
IV.TYING
[...]
"Accordingly,we vacate the District Court s finding of a per se tying
violation and remand the case.Plaintiffs may on remand
pursue their tying claim under the rule of reason."
V.TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND REMEDY
[...]
"We conclude,however,that the District Courts remedies decree must be vacated for three independent reasons :(1)the court failed to hold a remedies-specific evidentiary hearing when there were disputed facts ;(2)the court failed to provide adequate reasons for its decreed remedies; and (3)this Court has revised the scope of Microsoft s liability and it is impossible to determine to what extent that should affect the remedies provisions."
VI.JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
"[the law] requires federal judges to avoid public comment on the merits of [ ]pending or impending cases [...] avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities,on the bench and off [...] to initiate or consider ex parte communications on the merits of pending or impending proceedings [...] to recuse themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. [...] All indications are that the District Judge violated each of these ethical precepts by talking about the case with reporters. The violations were deliberate,repeated,egregious,and flagrant. The only serious question is what consequences should follow."
"[...] leads us to conclude that the appropriate remedy for the violations of §455(a)is disqualification of the District Judge retroactive only to the date he entered the order breaking up Microsoft.We therefore will vacate that order in its entirety and remand this case to a different District Judge,but will not set aside the existing Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law (except insofar as specific findings are clearly erroneous or legal conclusions are incorrect)."
VII.CONCLUSION
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed in part, reversed in part,and remanded in part.We vacate in full the Final Judgment embodying the remedial order,and remand the case to the District Court for reassignment to a different trial judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
/u/13460/JUN982.GIF?f=community){kind=small}
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/21286/crop5d91cdb7d98a9_cropped.jpeg?f=community){kind=small}
:strip_exif()/u/755/crawler.gif?f=community){kind=small}
:strip_exif()/u/1165/thunk.gif?f=community){kind=small}
:strip_exif()/u/8422/waarschuwing.gif?f=community){kind=small}
/u/9273/crop576bd2537abe7_cropped.png?f=community){kind=small}
