• Re:Here's a by skelley (Score:1) Monday October 14, @08:45AM

The Island of Doctor Moureau (Score:5, Informative) by mccalli on Monday October 14, @08:20AM (#4444810) (User #323026 Info | http://www.eruvia.org/)

And what is he, a scrabble champion or something? Do Judges REALLY talk like that? In The Island of Doctor Moureau (the original book, not the film interpretations), there is a human/orang-utan cross which speaks in what he calls "Big Thinks". The Orang-utan's idea is that if he uses big enough words, he'll seem really intelligent. When the book's protaganist flees home, he can't help noticing that most of the establishment (particularly his local vicar, as far as I recall), seems to be speaking purely in Big Thinks. I suspect our friend Mr Jackson is suffering from precisely the same syndrome. Cheers, Ian

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• Re:The Island of Doctor Moureau by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 14, @09:42AM
• Re: The Island of Doctor Moureau by Black Parrot (Score:1) Monday October 14, @10:57AM

Re:So, the rules are bad? (Score:5, Insightful) by gi-tux on Monday October 14, @08:25AM (#4444822) (User #309771 Info | http://www.knology.net/~kfulks)

No, I think that he is saying that there are basically no set rules and the people have a right to know, so let's put some specific rules in place. The few rules that exist are so broad in his opinion that they can be used anyway that the appeals court sees fit. Now I don't necessarily agree with him on this point. I believe that the more narrow and specific you make the laws, the worse they are in the long run. Laws should be relatively broad because you can't see the future when you make them. I do however agree with him on the fact that the people have a right to know. Maybe this will help free some information to the people in this process. It is a shame that a company is getting away with such a miscarriage of justice in this case simply because the judge made a few comments.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• Re:So, the rules are bad? by MindStalker (Score:3) Monday October 14, @08:54AM
  • Re:So, the rules are bad? by gi-tux (Score:2) Monday October 14, @12:26PM

Re:So, the rules are bad? (Score:4, Insightful) by PainKilleR-CE on Monday October 14, @09:17AM (#4444994) (User #597083 Info)

I do however agree with him on the fact that the people have a right to know. The right to know what? The transcripts for the trial are freely available, but his comments outside of court made him appear biased, whether he actually was or not. Maybe this will help free some information to the people in this process. It is a shame that a company is getting away with such a miscarriage of justice in this case simply because the judge made a few comments. The comments he made simply got him removed from the trial. They had little weight in the other portions of the case the appeals court overturned or sent back to the court for review. It seems that this isn't the only rule that Judge Jackson had a problem with, as he ignored quite a few others during the trial, all of which are cited in the appeals court's ruling.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Re:So, the rules are bad? (Score:4, Interesting) by arthurs_sidekick on Monday October 14, @12:09PM (#4446052) (User #41708 Info | http://www.theonion.com/)

His comments made him appear biased He said disparaging things about Microsoft's witnesses after he had heard their testimony and read their depositions. This makes him "sound biased?" A bias, in the pejorative sense, is a propensity to make a certain kind of judgment independently of the evidence. However, these guys LIED TO HIS FACE, repeatedly. So if he comes to the opinion that they are not trustworthy folks, he's not biased, he's making a judgment on the basis of the evidence. Or, go ahead and call that "bias" if you like. But then it's no sin to be biased.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• Re:So, the rules are bad? by PainKilleR-CE (Score:1) Monday October 14, @12:58PM
• 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

Re:So, the rules are bad? (Score:5, Insightful) by vonWoland (dmitri@nosPAm.fredbox.com) on Monday October 14, @08:32AM (#4444847) (User #615992 Info)

First, to defend the judge's language, his article appeared in a "trade paper," i. e., a journal for jurisits. Hence the unqualified use of esoteric terms like omerta is just as justified as a reference to "snrtRNA" in Natrure or even "M$" on these pages. Second, there are rule breakings and rule breakings. The judge violated no law, and the appeals court took him to task only for "'deliberate, repeated, egregious, and flagrant' violations of ethical canons" One can ask whether if one considers an action to be perfectly ethical, one should still refrain form acting in such a manner because the long standing tradition of one's profession says that an action is unethical. In this light, to not act muight be considered cowardly, and ispo fact unethical, which I think is the judge's point. One could wish, however, that the judge was a bit more circumspect in his statements. Shure, it was good that he was vocal, but perhaps the stridency and the timleness of his speech did more to hurt the cause than help it.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Re:So, the rules are bad? (Score:5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 14, @08:40AM (#4444874)

Hence the unqualified use of esoteric terms like omerta is just as justified as a reference to "snrtRNA" in Natrure or even "M$" on these pages. It's closer to M$ than to snrtRNA. Indeed, snrtRNA is a value-neutral word, whereas both M$ and omerta are derogatory. Indeed, usually omerta refer's to the Mafia's "law" of silence (enforced by death...), so Jackson is indeed comparing the judicial establishment to a criminal organization.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• Re:So, the rules are bad? by vonWoland (Score:1) Monday October 14, @08:46AM
  • Re: So, the rules are bad? by Black Parrot (Score:3) Monday October 14, @10:59AM
• 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
• Re:So, the rules are bad? by rew (Score:2) Monday October 14, @10:04AM
• Meta-judicial.... by anonymous cupboard (Score:2) Monday October 14, @10:13AM

Re:So, the rules are bad? (Score:4, Insightful) by Citizen of Earth on Monday October 14, @11:36AM (#4445850) (User #569446 Info)

So, in effect, he is saying: "Yes, I broke the rules, but it's ok, because I don't agree with the rules." Well, despite any notions of 'judicial disobedience', if Judge Jackson had have kept his yap shut, Microsoft could be split in two right now. (Though I'm not sure whether this would have been a good or a bad thing.)

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• The rules want it both ways by drew_kime (Score:2) Monday October 14, @11:53AM
• Re:So, the rules are bad? by tchdab1 (Score:2) Monday October 14, @12:25PM
• Re:So, the rules are bad? by poot_rootbeer (Score:2) Monday October 14, @01:07PM
  • Re:So, the rules are bad? by z_gringo (Score:2) Monday October 14, @01:28PM
• 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

i think Jackson did a good work inside the court room and a bad one outside. It was quite clear from the beginning, that there would be an appeal. In that case he should have tried everything to make it waterproof. But with the interviews he served a broadside of grapeshot to his own cause.

It may be a pitty that you may be right but saying so can put you wrong. But that's life.

Yours, Martin

• Re:Not talking so much would have helped the cause by WolfWithoutAClause (Score:2) Monday October 14, @09:43AM
• Re:Not talking so much would have helped the cause by dirk (Score:2) Monday October 14, @11:12AM
  • Re:Not talking so much would have helped the cause by jimhill (Score:3) Monday October 14, @11:58AM
• 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

Re:Mis-judged (Score:5, Insightful) by capt.Hij on Monday October 14, @08:23AM (#4444814) (User #318203 Info | http://impact.sr.unh.edu/)

The article has little to do with Microsoft. It is about the conduct of the judge. Regardless of how the defendent acts a judge should not go on record using harsh metaphors describing the conduct of the people that he is supposed to be presiding over. Because of the incredible responsibilites given to the courts the people who run them should show the utmost respect to all parties. They should also conduct themselves in a way that does not lead people to believe that they are biased. It is silly to think that they do not have biases, but they should at least demonstrate that they can take an even handed approach despite their views. When Penfield went on record and sharply rebuked the conduct of Microsoft before hearing all of the arguments then his decisions became suspect. No matter which side of the fence you are on with respect to Microsoft all parties should be unhappy with Penfield's conduct. It hurt the cause of everybody involved in the case.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Re:Mis-judged (Score:5, Interesting) by sfled (sfledNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday October 14, @08:39AM (#4444869) (User #231432 Info | http://www.animai.com/)

True, speaking in public about the case was not a wonderful thing. Yet the Judge had a visceral reaction to the misery (both financial, intellectual and emotional) that Microsoft's shady tactics have caused to the people who work in this industry and in a larger sense to the end-users who are saddled with it's miserable products. I imagine that he was also royally pissed-off when MS tried to pull the same cheap tricks in his courtroom. The Judge rebuked MS as soon as it became apparent that MS was trying to insinuate the same tactics (FUD, fudging, lying, cheating) into the courtroom as it uses in it's commercial dealings. I have seen barristers fly into a purple rage when lawyers from either side of the argument presume to fool them with technical double-talk and sleight of hand. MS tried to treat the Judge like a fool. Unfortunately, the Judge let himself be baited and let his temper get the better of him. Looks like MS has found another trick to add to it's repertoire. It is in many ways infortunate that in our society those who are truly passionate about their work are often labeled as irresponsible by the status quo.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• Re:Mis-judged by ClosedSource (Score:2) Monday October 14, @08:47AM
  • Re:Mis-judged by ch-chuck (Score:3) Monday October 14, @09:31AM
  • Re:Mis-judged by cleetus (Score:3) Monday October 14, @09:32AM

More plain speaking judges (Score:5, Interesting) by Gerry Gleason (gerry&geraldgleason,com) on Monday October 14, @09:52AM (#4445160) (User #609985 Info)

Why should one hesitate to call something what it is in plain language? Yes we all have biases, but I don't think the comments ammounted to bias, but an honest reaction to what was taking place in his courtroom. The only debatable part is whether it is wise to comment before the case is out of the courts, or if you want to claim that he commented directly on the matters before him. Only diehard MS appologists suggest that he expressed bias, although I see a lot of complaints that he hurt the case against MS. I respectfully disagree, and I would like more discussion about the merrits of what is being said now in this article. He is directly challenging the appeals court rebuke, and I think what he says has merrit. Do you really think MS would have been broken up by now if he had never made these comments? It's not even clear that this would be the most desirable outcome if your aim is the stop the MS campain to take over the world.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• Re:More plain speaking judges by MCZapf (Score:1) Monday October 14, @11:55AM

Re:More plain speaking judges (Score:4, Insightful) by 5KVGhost on Monday October 14, @12:48PM (#4446346) (User #208137 Info)

"Why should one hesitate to call something what it is in plain language? Yes we all have biases, but I don't think the comments ammounted to bias, but an honest reaction to what was taking place in his courtroom." Ok, let's say you're on trial for insurance fraud. In the middle of the case, while the trail is underway, the judge makes a statement to the media where he expresses his personal dislike for you, strongly implies that you're guilty as sin, and states that you should be severely punished for your crimes. That's his "honest reaction", so it's ok with you? Of course it isn't. Judges have no business publically expressing their personal opinions on or being political pundits while in the middle of a legal proceeding. Their job is to be impartial, and anything less is unfair to everyone involved.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• Re:More plain speaking judges by Gerry Gleason (Score:3) Monday October 14, @01:09PM

Re:Mis-judged (Score:5, Insightful) by rcs1000 (rcs1000.yahoo@com) on Monday October 14, @08:28AM (#4444830) (User #462363 Info)

Neither Microsoft, nor the Judge, can look back on the trial and think that they behaved fittingly. Microsoft bribed and bullied witnesses (such as AMD's CEO) to give evidence. They lied about how easy it was to take IE out of Windows, and they played a FUD game like the best of them. By these standards, Jackson behaved admirably. The only problem is: he's the Judge, he's supposed to be impartial. If, prior to the trial beginning, he has expressed in interviews (albeit unpublished ones) a strong view about one of the parties then he is not going into the trial as an unbiased Judge. This perception of bias, rather than the speaking to journalists per se, is why Jackson was struck down so. And, for all Jackson's arguments about the right of Judges to speak out, I have to agree with the appeals court.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Re:Mis-judged (Score:5, Interesting) by NoOneInParticular on Monday October 14, @09:03AM (#4444953) (User #221808 Info)

I can't find the source so quickly, but I seem to remember that Judge Jackson did not express any bias prior to the trial. At worst he expressed bias during, but I seem to remember he gave only interviews after the trial. This 'bias' was caused by the behaviour of Microsoft in court. I remember as it seemed very odd to me at the time. This judge has been lied to during the trial, and when he says that he's pissed off at being lied to after the trial, he is expressing bias and the case is annulled. But then again, I might be remembering it wrongly altogether. Funny though, if he would have spoken about the trial before the trial to the media, how could he have ever been selected as the judge for the trial?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• Re:Mis-judged by rcs1000 (Score:2) Monday October 14, @09:08AM
• Re:Mis-judged by PainKilleR-CE (Score:2) Monday October 14, @09:28AM
• Re:Mis-judged by toopc (Score:2) Monday October 14, @12:03PM
• Re:Mis-judged by leifb (Score:1) Monday October 14, @12:23PM
• 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
• Re:Mis-judged by mitochrondia (Score:2) Monday October 14, @08:34AM
• 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

Re:I'm Torn... (Score:5, Interesting) by capt.Hij on Monday October 14, @08:38AM (#4444867) (User #318203 Info | http://impact.sr.unh.edu/)

I visited Washington DC only once. After going through and visiting all of the sites one thing really stuck with me. The supreme court building was the only place where people would immediately become quiet when they entered the building. Not only that but they were generally more respectful of the place itself. There was something different about the place they were in. The capitol building was a loud, almost raucus place. The various memorials were different but all had many people and families making noises. The supreme court, however, was just the opposite. Afterwards when I thought about it, I realized that this is just the way it ought to be. Given that Penfield was given the ability to order the break up of a public corporation he should have been much more respectful of that responsibility. I can also see both sides of the case. Rather than being torn, I am quite unhappy with both sides.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• Re:Interestingly by zsmooth (Score:1) Monday October 14, @01:19PM
• 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

Re:I'm Torn... (Score:4, Insightful) by MercuryWings on Monday October 14, @09:04AM (#4444961) (User #615234 Info | Last Journal: Friday October 11, @10:37AM)

In a society where all men are considered equal, then based on that definition no one man can have the absolute right to judge the doings of another man. In a perfect world, the existence of courts and judges wouldn't be necessary. However, this isn't a perfect world, and there on occasion becomes the need for a third party to make a binding decision in a dispute between two others, be it two individuals or an individual and the law. This is where the problem lies. In order to ensure that both parties get an equal shake at stating their case, the judge must be considered a neutral party from the get-go. The judge's role is not to impose his own opinions on a case, but to impose the correct interpretation of law that is applicable. His opinions and cbeliefs on the matter should have no reflection on the outcome of the case. Judges, however, are as human (and imperfect) as the rest of us. We all have our biases and beliefs, and we should not expect a judge to be any different. It is (at least in my opinion) impossible to expect a judge to be truly neutral in their own mind. But at the very least the judge should present the image or impartiality when it comes to cases they are residing on. A judicial system cannot function successfully at providing justice if it is not perceived as providing that justice to all people equally. If 'judge' Jackson does not like the responsibility and duties of passing himself off as a truly neutral party in a court case, then he should resign from the bench and return to practicing law privately. At least then if he was to shoot off his mouth prematurely it would be normal and considered (unfortunately) part of the normal politics of law.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• Re:I'm Torn... by PW2 (Score:1) Monday October 14, @12:41PM
  • Re:I'm Torn... by MercuryWings (Score:2) Monday October 14, @01:12PM
• Re:I'm Torn... by sjlutz (Score:1) Monday October 14, @01:45PM

Re:I'm Torn... (Score:4, Insightful) by Gerry Gleason (gerry&geraldgleason,com) on Monday October 14, @09:21AM (#4445002) (User #609985 Info)

The question is does he have a point (in the recent article). Many of us regret that his comments gave the appeals court an easy target to strike down his decision, but I wonder whether that is the only reason, or would they have done the same under even more tortured logic. Is it possible that he could see and anticipate that they (MS) would use any twisted legal tactic to reduce and delay the impact of any decision, and that the public's right to know outweighed the risks to the correct final legal decision. After all, the court left in place everything but his remedy. The basic decisions and findings were sound. I certainly would like to know if the remedy would have stood on the merrits, and I think it is pretty weak for them to use this as the only or primary reason to strike his ruling. We all understand the tactical reasons to err on the side of silence in this situation, but the Judge Jackson also raises an important point. Is it really necessary to have complete silence in this situation, and it particular, does it serve the public interest. For MS lawyers they were engaged in the battles of an extended war, and they would spare no tactic no matter how damaging to the process. If he had waited to comment on MS tactics it might have been better, but I'm not sure. The fact is that MS might win in court anyway with their take no prisoners approach, or a least delay until it no longer matters. After all this worked for IBM in the past. Given this, it is better for the public to know more about what is going on at the time it is happenning. To change the example ... In Illinois there is a criminal case that is still lingering in the public attention because some of the players are current candidates. A man was convicted of murder and later overturned when the DNA evidence cleared him. The prossecuters kept going to court and apposing any reversal, even though evidence was gathering of misconduct on the government side. At some point it is appropriate for a judge to publicly condemn legal manuvering that continues to delay justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• Re:I'm Torn... by PainKilleR-CE (Score:1) Monday October 14, @09:37AM
• Re:I'm Torn... by sql*kitten (Score:2) Monday October 14, @11:23AM
• Re:I'm Torn... by dlkinney (Score:1) Monday October 14, @02:10PM

Re:Legal Times article? (Score:5, Informative) by maharg on Monday October 14, @08:23AM (#4444815) (User #182366 Info | http://www.lenton.uklinux.net/)

here I think - http://www.law.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename= OpenMarket/Xcelerate/View&t=PubArticleDC&c=PubArti cle&cid=1032128635760&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa= 0 [law.com]

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• Re:Look at these... by Evro (Score:1) Monday October 14, @09:26AM
• And you point was? by Gerry Gleason (Score:2) Monday October 14, @09:26AM
• Re:Look at these... by TheReverend (Score:1) Monday October 14, @12:06PM
• 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

Re:The judge was incompetent (Score:4, Interesting) by fw3 on Monday October 14, @09:09AM (#4444975) (User #523647 Info | http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 27, @09:42AM)

Ahh so you know enough about antitrust law and the judiciary to comment on the competence of a senior judge? I found Jackson's article to be persuasive and as intelligent as I had come to expect based on his performance in the MS trial: The judiciary is in many ways the most secretive of the three branches of the federal government. It is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act or any other so-called "sunshine" statute. Judicial disciplinary proceedings are conducted in private. Although the judicial system professes to display its decisional processes "on the public record," its most important decisions are made behind closed doors, whether by judges or juries. Law clerks and supporting staff are sworn to secrecy. There are remarkably few "leaks," and no whistleblowers. A veteran journalist once told me that "we know more about how the CIA operates than we do about you." Jackson demonstrated having a firm grasp on the technical and economic issues at hand. This is strongly at odds with my general experinence. It is most ofen among lawyers and MBA-types that I get the "Microsoft is just a good thing, look at them they're so successfull" attitude. I'm glad this one indeed is willing to step a little outside the box, and from all I could see of the following 'remedy' proceedings the current judge will be following Jackson's logic, if not the specifics of his recommended solution.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

• Re:The judge was incompetent by AlCoHoLiC (Score:2) Monday October 14, @09:12AM
• Re:The judge was incompetent by budgenator (Score:3) Monday October 14, @10:48AM

• Re:What joke? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 14, @11:41AM
• Re:What joke? by cachorro (Score:1) Monday October 14, @02:02PM
• 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

• Re:Microsoft case? by jacquesm (Score:1) Monday October 14, @09:17AM

• Re:He should have kept quiet by t482 (Score:1) Monday October 14, @10:44AM
• Re:He should have kept quiet by Reziac (Score:2) Monday October 14, @11:07AM

Re:He should have kept quiet (Score:4, Insightful) by ArtDent on Monday October 14, @11:30AM (#4445814) (User #83554 Info)

I also frankly can't blame him for his dim view of Microsoft. They behaved like the worst kind of gangsters in his courtroom, lying under oath, intimidating witness, and manufacturing evidence, all of it shockingly brazen. Why weren't any of these shenanigans rewarded with chanrges of Perjury or Contempt? That would seem a more appropriate (and satisfying) consequence.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

"Our life tenure is all the more reason for us to be able to communicate informally on occasion with a public that must live with our decisions, yet can never vote us out of office,"

• Re:Free Speech Issue? by Nomad37 (Score:1) Monday October 14, @09:31AM
• Re:Free Speech Issue? by Catbeller (Score:2) Monday October 14, @11:01AM

• Re:Jackson's full article at law.com by Spock the Baptist (Score:2) Monday October 14, @10:22AM

• Re:Why would a Judges Bias be wrong? by PainKilleR-CE (Score:1) Monday October 14, @09:47AM
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
• 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

To have someone to sit through all the FUD, paid-for-testimony, and downright perjury that M$ put Judge Jackson through and not expect him to make a judgement as to how evil Gates et al acted is preposterous.

There is not even an assertion that he went into the case biased. It's just watching the Microsofties actions and listening to the Microsoftista apologists make excuses for illegal acts that caused Judge Jackson to come to - get this - a judgement that M$ should be broken up.

But yeah, he should have kept his yap shut for just a few more months...

• 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

• 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

• 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

• Re:No one give a flying f**k by ClosedSource (Score:2) Monday October 14, @08:43AM
• They had some disadventages by drew_kime (Score:3) Monday October 14, @11:50AM
• 3 replies beneath your current threshold.

Merely posting on /. saying "Someone against Microsoft is not necessarily correct" is not flamebait.

You just have to read the appeal ruling to see the incompentence and/or bias (hard to tell which it is). The fact that 1/3 of his rulings were overturned, and another third remanded back for retrial should be evidence enough.

Unless of course, failing to rule against Microsoft purely on the basis that, well, they're M$, the Beast of Redmond, dude, is conclusive proof that the appeals judges are biased. See the appeal ruling [microsoft.com] (or here [com.com] if you can't bear to surf to microsoft.com).

Of course on the other hand, the fact that 1/3 weren't either overturned or remanded indicates that Microsoft were in the wrong and/or incompetent. In my opinion, the indications are that the J++ ruling at least was MS incompetence, though others are clearly MS bad.