s, Justice Jackson felt that additional delay was unmerited. Despite Microsofts continuing protests that none were committed, Microsoft had been found guilty of antitrust violations, following a full trial. 20The Court was convinced, for several reasons, that a final - and appealable - judgment should be entered quickly. It also reluctantly came to the conclusion, for those same reasons, that a structural remedy is mandatory. The Courts position is simply this, Microsoft as it is presently organized and led is unwilling to accept the notion that it broke the law or accede to an order amending its conduct.21 In the Courts Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law document, it stated thatMicrosoft doesnt recognize or concede that any of its business practices violated the Sherman Act. Microsoft officials stated publicly that the company has done nothing wrong and that it will be vindicated on appeal. There is a substantial body of public opinion, which holds to a similar view. That assertion is now being put to the test. If this is indeed the case then this should be addressed by an appeal court as soon as possible, in order to confirm the opinion of Microsofts innocence and to intervene in any modification and reconstruction activities before they become irreversible.Justice Jackson also determined that there is credible evidence in the record to suggest that Microsoft, convinced of its innocence, continues to do business as it has in the past. The court demonstrated concern that Microsoft may yet do to other markets what it has already done in the PC operating system and browser markets. Microsoft has given no indication that it will voluntarily alter its business policy in any significant way. The Court cited Microsofts intention to appeal even the imposition of the modest conduct remedies it has itself proposed as an alternative to the non-structural remedies sought by the plaintiffs as proof of their Business as usual attitude.Th...
