The judges were critical of District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s decision to split the company after only one day’s hearings. Jackson refused to hear evidence on the matter from senior Microsoft executives, including Bill Gates.
Jackson was also criticised for his comments to the media following his ruling. He compared Bill Gates to Napoleon and Microsoft to members of a Washington gang called the Newton Street Crew. Members of the Appeals Court said his comments amounted to a breach of judicial conduct, describing them as “beyond the pale” and suggesting bias.
The Appeals Court said breaking up Microsoft would not solve most of the antitrust violations for which the company was found guilty. Some of the judges reasoned that if a smaller company produced the Windows operating system it would still have a monopoly on that market and it could produce its own internet browser from scratch.
Judge Raymond Randolph said, “Splitting [Microsoft into] three companies, each one of which gets Windows and they all compete against each other. That I can understand.” The judges also found that Jackson failed to properly define the market Microsoft was accused of attacking.
Government lawyers admitted that, should the appeals court fail to find a causal link between Microsoft’s actions and the demise of its competitors, the case should be sent back to the lower court for review.
If the appeals court rules that Netscape posed no competitive threat to Microsoft or that Microsoft’s behaviour did not prevent Netscape from effectively distributing its browser, Microsoft stands to win its appeal.