WASHINGTON – Everyone who knew anything about the Microsoft antitrust case was talking about it on Thursday afternoon, and both the company and the Justice Department claimed victory.
Read on to hear what everyone's been saying about what was supposed to be the antitrust case of the century – until the appeals court short-circuited it this week.
The appeals court: "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."
Microsoft: "Microsoft is pleased that the U.S. Court of Appeals has overturned most of the lower court's findings against the company, drastically narrowing the case and removing the breakup cloud from the company."
Attorney General John Ashcroft: "This is a significant victory."
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller: "We're elated."
E-mail to a mailing list set up by the appeals court: "Activity has occurred in case 00-5212 – USA v. Microsoft Corporation.... Please be aware that access to the document listing may be delayed by unusually heavy traffic and the opinion is already attached below."
Association for Competitive Technology, a pro-Microsoft group: "The court got it right in rejecting the outrageous notion that integration is harmful to consumers and the industry. Tight integration among related areas of the IT industry promotes competition by enabling low-cost competitors to go toe-to-toe with a high-priced incumbent. Integration has always been an important part of innovation."
The appeals court: "We vacate the District Court's (breakup) decree for three reasons. First, the District Court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing despite the presence of remedies-specific factual disputes. Second, the court did not provide adequate reasons for its decreed remedies. Finally, we have drastically altered the scope of Microsoft's liability, and it is for the District Court in the first instance to determine the propriety of a specific remedy for the limited ground of liability which we have upheld."
Rep. Cal Dooley (D-California), co-chair of the New Democrat Coalition: "The complex and protracted litigation in this matter has gone on far too long. I am hopeful that, with guidance from today's ruling, the parties will now quickly and efficiently settle their remaining differences in this case, and arrive at a negotiated resolution that would protect consumers, ensure competition, and encourage continued technological innovation."
Microsoft's Bill Gates: "We feel very good about what was written.... Microsoft has always wanted to settle this case."
House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas): "I applaud today's ruling because it's good for American competitiveness. It sends the message that innovation in America will be rewarded, not punished.... Government needs to get off the back of our innovators so that high-tech America can prosper."
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller: "Our victory before this court demonstrates conclusively our long-held contention that this case was founded upon traditional antitrust principles."
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer: "The Justice Department is going to review the decision. They're studying it now."
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal: "My view is that this opinion is so powerful it ought to remove any doubts on the part of justice as to whether to continue as vigorously as we have in the past."
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, in early 2000, to the New York Times: "He had a trained mule who could do all kinds of wonderful tricks. One day somebody asked him: 'How do you do it? How do you train the mule to do all these amazing things?' 'Well,' he answered, 'I’ll show you.'
"He took a 2 by 4 and whopped him upside the head. The mule was reeling and fell to his knees, and the trainer said: 'You just have to get his attention.'"
Gartner analyst Neil McDonald to Reuters: "Now with this ruling, we believe that Microsoft will tie .NET to Microsoft's operating system."
Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller: "We have an argument for a very strong remedy, perhaps a breakup. We don't accept that the court is totally hostile to this remedy, and we think that there's a strong case for strong remedy. All the other possible remedies really won't work in this setting against a company like Microsoft. We're going to consider the remedy question thoroughly."
Association for Competitive Technology's Jonathan Zuck, saying no remedy is necessary: "Any remedy must bring about benefit to the economy or the industry as a whole and no remedy may."
The appeals court: "The line has been crossed. The public comments were not only improper, but also would lead a reasonable, informed observer to question the district judge's impartiality."
Time's Margaret Carlson, CNN Capital Gang, June 10, 2000: "The country is fortunate that there are people like Joel Klein and Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson willing to take on this icon of the dot-com IPO world, these, you know, rich guys who don't think that there's any place in America for regulation."
David Ignatius, Washington Post columnist, April 5, 2000: "Most of the plaudits in this case so far have gone to the Justice Department's lawyer, David Boies. But the real hero, I think, was Judge Jackson."
The New York Times editorial from April 2000: "(The ruling) deserves wide credence.... It was carefully grounded in antitrust doctrine and the facts presented at trial."
Chief Judge Harry Edwards, February 2001: "We don't run off our mouths in a pejorative way.... The system would be a shambles if all judges did that.... Good heavens, is that what judges do? They take preferred reporters in?"
Computer and Communications Industry Association, which filed a brief advocating a more extreme breakup: "In upholding the most serious of the Sherman Act violations found by the District Court, this Court of Appeals, considered the most predisposed to support Microsoft, has signaled that it too understands the gravity of Microsoft's illegal behavior. The foundation therefore exists for an equally serious and effective remedy."
Computing Technology Industry Association, a pro-Microsoft group: "Today's ruling by the Court of Appeals is welcome news for competition and consumers – particularly the reversal of the lower court's breakup order. CompTIA concurs with the Court's decision to reaffirm the very principles that the antitrust laws seek to promote – intense and fair competition."
Kenneth Starr, speaking for an anti-Microsoft group: "This ruling is good for consumers, good for competition and good for innovation in this industry."
Farhad Manjoo in San Francisco and Andrew Osterman in Washington contributed to this report.
