Traduzindo: a Microsoft foi declarada culpada de praticas ilegais,
violando a lei Sherman (a lei antitruste dos EUA). Apesar de poder
recorrer a instancias superiores, medidas mais bruscas - inclusive a
divisao da Microsoft, `a la AT&T em 1982, podem ser tomadas.
Ou seja: a Microsoft, neste momento, esta' realmente em perigo de ser
dividida. E nesta segunda, as acoes dela cairam 15% em Nova Iorque (menos
US$80 bilhoes de valor de mercado, Bill perdeu algo como US$15 bilhoes de
sua fortuna pessoal, se meus calculos estao certos)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The United States, nineteen individual states, and the District of Columbia
("the plaintiffs") bring these consolidated civil
enforcement actions against defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft")
under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1
and 2. The plaintiffs charge, in essence, that Microsoft has waged an
unlawful campaign in defense of its monopoly position in
the market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible personal
computers ("PCs"). Specifically, the plaintiffs
contend that Microsoft violated §2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a series
of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and
predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power. They also assert that
Microsoft attempted, albeit unsuccessfully to date, to
monopolize the Web browser market, likewise in violation of §2. Finally, they
contend that certain steps taken by Microsoft
as part of its campaign to protect its monopoly power, namely tying its
browser to its operating system and entering into
exclusive dealing arrangements, violated § 1 of the Act.
Upon consideration of the Court's Findings of Fact ("Findings"), filed herein
on November 5, 1999, as amended on December
21, 1999, the proposed conclusions of law submitted by the parties, the
briefs of amici curiae, and the argument of counsel
thereon, the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by
anticompetitive means and attempted to
monopolize the Web browser market, both in violation of § 2. Microsoft also
violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully
tying its Web browser to its operating system. The facts found do not support
the conclusion, however, that the effect of
Microsoft's marketing arrangements with other companies constituted unlawful
exclusive dealing under criteria established
by leading decisions under § 1.
The nineteen states and the District of Columbia ("the plaintiff states")
seek to ground liability additionally under their
respective antitrust laws. The Court is persuaded that the evidence in the
record proving violations of the Sherman Act also
satisfies the elements of analogous causes of action arising under the laws
of each plaintiff state. For this reason, and for
others stated below, the Court holds Microsoft liable under those particular
state laws as well.
Recebida em Mon 03 Apr 2000 - 18:48:33 BRT