|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 09 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT |
The way I read those quotes is that Judge Motz established the context that took
competition in the applications market out of the discussion. I read
"Microsoft's conduct was not anticompetitive within the meaning of the Sherman
Act" as meaning "anticompetitive in the operating systems market within the
meaning of the Sherman Act". As I mentioned, he also said,Although
Novell presented evidence from which a jury could have found that Microsoft
engaged in aggressive conduct, perhaps to monopolize or attempt to monopolize
the applications market, it did not present evidence sufficient for a jury to
find that Microsoft committed any acts that violated §2 in maintaining its
monopoly in the operating systems market. That indicates to me that
he was much more receptive to the idea that there was illegally anticompetitive
behavior with respect to that market. Earlier he said,...Fourth
Circuit affirmed a ruling I made that Novell's monopolization and attempted
monopolization claims in the applications market are barred by limitations.
Thus, the only remaining claim is the second: that Microsoft violated §2 of the
Sherman Act and caused antitrust injury to Novell by maintaining its monopoly in
the operating systems market. I think that sets the context
for everything after that point.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Out of context? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
