4 ms·

Microsoft was arguably the first, the case fell apart and ended up a settlement because the Judge presiding over the case violated the court code of conduct by

Microsoft was arguably the first, the case fell apart and ended up a settlement because the Judge presiding over the case violated the court code of conduct by discussing the case with the media. Something laughable in 2024. That being said, the trial is the basis for the action taken against Google: > However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jackson's findings of fact, and held that traditional antitrust analysis was not equipped to consider software-related practices like browser tie-ins. Another interesting outcome of the trail was that it established a playbook that others, namely Google, could follow to avoid antitrust litigation. I would argue that Google's ability to operate as a monopoly for so long was largely a result of the outcomes of the Microsoft trial.

nodamage 2y ago
> the case fell apart and ended up a settlement because the Judge presiding over the case violated the court code of conduct by discussing the case with the media. That's a bit of an oversimplification. Key parts of the original ruling were overturned because the legal analysis performed by the original judge was done incorrectly. Or more specifically, for the case of bundling IE with Windows, analyzed using the wrong legal framework (per se analysis vs rule of reason). The case was remanded back to the district level for re-analysis under the rule of reason, and that would have been necessary regardless of the judge's behavior.