Spencer Waller Quotes (21 Quotes)

It's basically good for the government that they get a quick hearing. Judge Jackson will make a quick decision. He hasn't messed around with this case.

The government is likely to prevail on the cumulative effect of how Microsoft's market power has prevented competition. A company that didn't have Microsoft's power could say they were just trying to be competitive.

It would be a major step. If they get the delay that they are seeking, their product will be out in the marketplace. It will be much harder for the government to get an injunction seven, eight months down the road, which is what they are seeking.

This case is forward-looking enough, dealing with the Internet and other technologies, that the outcome won't be useless once it's all over.

The Justice Department's approach has always been more nuanced than that. Now they're saying they want something more, ... My guess is they're going to want to break the company up.

He'll probably hand down a series of injunctions to stop the specific things he finds to be illegal.

It seems Microsoft's cross examination has not been devastating, ... It's a mistake for Microsoft to say other people do what they're doing. First of all, the answer is, 'So what' Also, the fundamental premise of antitrust law is that there are different rules for behavior for a monopoly than for everyone else.

I had expected there to be some more hearings. I would have expected him to entertain witnesses, but not engage in the full-fledged discovery that Microsoft wanted. That would have given them a little victory, and to the extent where if the court of appeals disagrees with him, it would be on the merits, not the process.

I don't think it's a wildly adventurous case, but it shows they're looking at types of competitive restraints they didn't before. I'd sort of look at the government's ability to prove that there is a harm to competition in the sense of either effects on prices, or on the offering of new services in the markets they're concerned about. This isn't a slam-dunk where you prove something and you win. This case involved the economy, and it's much more complex.

Microsoft is going to try to establish that there is vigorous competition in the marketplace. They're going to try to get admissions that Microsoft has less market power than is apparent, or that this venture can take away from any market power it does have.

I think it strongly suggests they (Netscape) believe the (proposed) settlement will not restore competition in the market, that it's not enough for their needs.

Right now, the EC commission is more aggressive than either the Clinton administration or the Bush administration when it comes to antitrust issues.

That appellate court decision was a wake-up call for the Justice Department. They got a clear signal from the court that if you don't have anything better than what you've shown us, you're going to lose.

Their (Netscape's) case is about proving damages and nothing in the government case dealt with that. This isn't a total free ride.

This is the first time in 20 some years that the government has filed a major monopolization case.

The judge would open up the remedy phase to listen to more evidence.

It's important in terms of how he chooses to express his written opinion.

They're already implementing some of the conduct remedies, and my guess is that they are prepared to negotiate about almost all of the rest, ... If you're not talking about a breakup of the company, it's very likely this case will settle if the states agree with the position that the DOJ is taking.

I don't think the facts are in dispute, ... Microsoft is going to make a stand on the law, saying, 'Yeah, we do all that stuff. So what'

If Microsoft wants to paint a picture of judge that is biased, this gives them a little more ammunition.

This judge is not inclined to delay based on how he has handled the case in the past.