Possibly, but when Janet Reno "had the goods" on Microsoft, she suddenly settled. Mind you, that was a lengthy case with the explicit purpose of splitting up Microsoft. Then, when it was all but cinched, she suddenly reversed and settled for just about ... no concessions. All Microsoft had to do was share APIs.
Even the judge in the case said that Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing." [1]
This new situation may be a slam-dunk, but no dunking may actually happen.
This was Judge Jackson, who had his decision overturned by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Also "the appeals court judges accused him of unethical conduct." A lot of grandiose things were said by people during these trials, many looking to enrich their careers.
Yes, but none of the findings of fact were overturned. The judge had been interviewed, which was the issue, not that the facts were in dispute. In the settlement, Microsoft also allowed PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.
Absolutely they were, that's what it means that most of Judge Jackson's ruling was overturned, and a new judge was appointed to determine penalties. Jackson wanted to break Microsoft apart and slap them with operating restrictions.
> Absolutely they were, that's what it means that most of Judge Jackson's ruling was overturned
Where is it said that, "most of Judge Jackson's ruling was overturned"?
If you are referring to the link I posted, the actual words were, "The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft."
Then, just five sentences later it says, "However, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact."
That's a technical term, because it's incredibly difficult for an Appeals court to overturn findings of fact. It would require finding the Judge clearly erroneous, and they didn't need to go through the hassle.
"In a 125-page unanimous ruling brimming with palpable derision and frustration, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit nullified all three parts of Judge Jackson's ruling in the case and removed the restrictions he placed on the company's business practices, even as it made reference to many of his conclusions."
Even the judge in the case said that Microsoft executives had "proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing." [1]
This new situation may be a slam-dunk, but no dunking may actually happen.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...