"A
guilty finding was overturned on appeal, and the government settled
with the company, imposing restrictions on its business practices. The
resulting introspection persuaded Gates to stand aside as chief
executive in favor of Steve Ballmer, who would be his partner in
remaking the company."
"The number of misstatements in just these two sentences is fairly amazing.
The judge's ruling that Microsoft had repeatedly violated the law
was not overturned. (And there are no "guilty" or "not guilty" findings
in civil antitrust cases to start with; this wasn't a criminal matter,
though it probably should have been.) The appeals court specifically
agreed with Judge Jackson that Microsoft was a serial offender, though
it did back Microsoft's position in a small portion of the charges.
The Bush administration's "settlement" was a cave-in, giving back what it had already won in court.
The "impositions" on Microsoft's business practices are widely
seen outside the company (and probably inside) as next to meaningless,
and certainly haven't had any visible effect on competition in an
industry that Microsoft still controls.
Ballmer became CEO in 2000, before Judge Jackson
ordered the breakup of the company, and long before the appeals court
overruled him.
I bring all this up mainly to point back to the first item -- the
notion that the company was cleared of wrongdoing. This has become
popular "wisdom," and it's incorrect. Every judge that has had to rule
on this has agreed that Microsoft broke the law to maintain its
monopoly.
Let's at least remember that much. "
