Robert Lande Quotations

She wants to be really sure that there's no inconsistencies. Microsoft is going to appeal anyway, but one of the things they would say is that she's being inconsistent.

One word for Microsoft: delay. Stretch the remedy out, stretch the appeal out, stretch the Supreme Court proceeding out. If you delay as long as possible then anything could happen.

I would expect Bush to appoint an assistant attorney general for antitrust who would settle for wimpy relief, but then you still have the 19 states suing, so it would be up to them.

If all she was going to do was rubber-stamp the settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft and say that the states get nothing, she could have done that in two or three months. I think it means the states are going to get something.

Judge Jackson's ruling contains no legal analysis. I thought the judge would explain why his order was consistent with precedent. The lack of analysis makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will refuse to take the case directly. Jackson issued the ruling too fast.

I think Microsoft will win on the tying issue at the appeals court level, but whether they will win that point at the Supreme Court is another question.

Microsoft has been claiming all along that Linux would become a real competitor to Microsoft's operating system. If you stretch this out long enough, who knows, they could be right. Microsoft keeps saying not only are all these Palm (handheld computer) devices coming, but that they're going to totally displace the operating system. If you stretch this out a year, two years, that could happen.

Microsoft's filing yesterday was the first time that the company has ever seriously considered the possibility that it might lose. It's the first time in the history of this case that they are actually grounded in reality.

Microsoft makes a pretty powerful case that they need more time. The idea of a breakup wasn't raised officially until April 28, so this hearing comes less than a month later.

These are some of the most conservative judges in the country. Ginsburg, in particular, used to head the antitrust division under the Reagan administration, so to say that he is antitrust-savvy is an understatement; the man knows antitrust law backwards and forwards.

This law has only been used two times - both times in the AT&T antitrust case - so it's rarely, rarely used. The longer it sits at the Court of Appeals, the less likely the Supreme Court is to take it on an expedited basis. To the extent that the Court of Appeals really starts to get their teeth into this, they could jump on this right away.

It might not be resolved for another two years. No one should count their winnings yet.

It's not that likely that the Supreme Court will take the case. This law has only been used two times - both times in the AT&T antitrust case - so it's rarely, rarely used.

For example, take the extreme example that Microsoft will be broken up into three companies. That won't happen until the appeals are exhausted. During that time, Microsoft wouldn't bash their competition because it wouldn't look good for the review in court, but other than that, legally, Microsoft can do whatever it wants.

If you don't trust the other person, you don't negotiate well with them. Microsoft has had two years to figure out a behavioral remedy that has lots of loopholes and escape clauses in it.

If you're really, really conservative, then you start with a very strong attitude that companies should be allowed to do whatever they want and the government shouldn't interfere with that. If you fix prices, that's a different story, but we're talking about behavior that isn't clear cut like price fixing.

The longer it sits at the Court of Appeals, the less likely the Supreme Court is to take it on an expedited basis. To the extent that the Court of Appeals really starts to get their teeth into this, they could jump on this right away.