Court of appeals throws out Judge Penfield’s “seriously tainted” decision
Today a federal appeals court overturned a district court judge’s earlier decision to penalize the Microsoft corporation by splitting it into two companies. The appeals court said Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson “seriously tainted” trial proceedings by acting inappropriately and offensively before he ruled that Microsoft was maintaining an illegal monopoly in the software market.
“The appeals court decision in favor of Microsoft is a huge victory for Washington state consumers, taxpayers and stockholders,” said Bob Williams, president of the Olympia-based Evergreen Freedom Foundation. “Stockholders in our state lost billions of dollars as a result of this frivolous and vindictive case.”
State attorneys general are now gearing up for more appeals against Microsoft. Williams said a continued battle against the software giant will hit Washington state the hardest.
“We hope these state attorneys general will drop any other lawsuit plans,” said Williams. “Washington citizens cannot afford the ‘taxation through litigation’ strategy the AGs are pursuing against Microsoft.”
Williams notes that antitrust laws were originally set up to protect consumers, not attack successful companies on behalf of their competitors. Consumers did not launch the complaints that led to the suit against Microsoft. In its deliberations, the district court did not consider the fact that Microsoft was responding to consumer demand when the company “tied” its internet browser to its operating system.
“It’s time to stop harassing Microsoft and move on,” said Williams. “Consumers are in trouble when the government sees improved quality and lower prices as evidence of a monopoly. If Microsoft had a monopoly, it would have no incentive to develop new technology as rapidly as it does to meet market demands and compete with other software providers.”
Microsoft has never been accused of price-gouging or offering a shoddy product. No evidence has been presented to show how Microsoft’s actions have hurt consumers.
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"