New
#101
I think you are a little fuzzy about the definitions of "convicted" and "guilty" in the US legal system.
US v MS was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal trial. One cannot be "found guilty" of anything in a civil trial. Nor can one be "punished" in the sense that you seem to be implying. The only "punishments" possible from a civil trial are fines, restitution, injunctive relief (behavior modification) and possibly forced structural remedies.
By way of comparison, when OJ Simpson was put on trial for murder, he was acquitted. That trial risked prison or even death as "punishment". He was later sued in civil court by the families of the deceased and lost, and his only "punishment" was financial.
Part of this is that criminal and civil trials have different standards by which they are judged. Criminal trials are much stricter than civil. Criminal requires that someone be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Civil a person can be found liable even if there is reasonable doubt.
This is why in criminal court, someone is "guilty" but in civil court they are found "liable" or "at fault". Someone can be found to be liable because they have been deemed to be guilty of violating a criminal law, but that's not the same thing as having been found guilty in a criminal court, because as I said, the standards for proving this are much lower.
So no. There was absolutely no possible chance, regardless of administration, that Microsoft would have been "punished" by anything other than some fines, and/or promising not to do it again. The absolute worst possible outcome that could have occurred would be a structural change at Microsoft, which probably would never have happened anyways since spinning off the browser business would have really not done anything to help.
Sadly, this "myth" of MS "being found guilty" and them being "a convicted monopolist" and other such things are complete fabrications by the internet, and repeated by people who have no idea how the legal system works, or what those terms even mean.
Last edited by Mystere; 08 Nov 2014 at 15:21.