On November 5, 1999, United States District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued an order, spanning 412 paragraphs, that constituted his findings of fact in United States v. Microsoft Corp., 98-1232 (D.D.C. Nov. 5, 1999). In the final paragraph, His Honor wrote:
Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft’s actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft’s core products. Microsoft’s past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft’s self-interest.
The D.C. Court of Appeals largely affirmed Judge Jackson, as it should have. Further Blawgletter sayeth not.