The current legal proceeding by the Department of Justice against Microsoft has already taken a long time and it may go on for a while. The testimony started in October of 1998. Finally, on November 5^th the judge hearing the case released the first of at least three parts of the judgment. In doing it this way Judge Jackson chose a highly unusual procedure. 

This trial is not being conducted in the usual format. Judge Judy may be able to conduct a trial and issue a full opinion in thirty minutes but it takes at least an hour on The Practice. Granted, The Practice usually has two or three cases intertwined in each episode. So, lets say it takes them twenty minutes each. Of course, there is the hanky panky that fills each hour. In any event, typical television dramas end when the jury reads the verdict. It seems the judge slams the gavel and the celebration (or pandemonium) begins. 

Not in this case. It seems the process is just beginning. An obvious difference is that there is no jury. Judge Penfield Jackson is also serving as the jury. That alone is not too rare in trials based upon federal laws.  Here, he answered the questions that normally are submitted to the jury…at least in Texas courts. He entered 412 separate "findings" that extend over 207 pages. It would be very hard to even read this "verdict" in an hour. 

It is highly unusual for the court to issue just the findings of facts without the companion conclusions of law. Simply, the judge has said I've told you what I believe is the truth, now we'll figure out if it violates any laws or not. 

After both the findings of fact and the conclusions of law are issued, then the court will issue a final judgment. The findings of fact indicate that the Department of Justice proved most of the factual points in its case. The findings were so favorable to the Justice Department that it may not have any trouble convincing the judge that laws were violated, and finally that certain remedial actions should be imposed. The remedies range from nominal fines to splitting the company into separate, independent companies that would have to compete with each other. 

Once before, in 1994, the Department of Justice and Microsoft settled an anti-trust case with little more than a promise by the company not to do the bad things again. The Justice Department has been criticized ever since that 1994 action for being too lenient. 

The real question remaining is did the judge leave the parties enough room to negotiate a settlement. The Justice department may feel pressure to hold out for a severe penalty in light of the past criticism and the very favorable findings from Judge Jackson. It appears the Justice Department can only loose if it settles. 

On the other hand Microsoft may feel its best tactic is to loose gracefully in the trial court and bet on a better outcome in front of the Supreme Court. This case may be able to bypass a federal court of appeals based on the Antitrust Expediting Act and move straight from the trial court to the US Supreme Court.  In the meantime, it may gain sympathy if the trial court enters a judgment that appears too harsh and millions of Windows users worry about the future of the company. 

I wonder if Microsoft has an eye on the national elections that would happen next year? Duh. 

While that action is pending, other federal courts have been involved in re-writing Computer Law. A three-judge federal appeals court has heard the very important oral arguments in ACLU vs. Reno II. 

Congress passed the Child Online Protective Act in 1998. http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/final_hr3783.html This act was supposed to be an improvement over the previous Communications Decency Act that the United States Supreme Court decided was unconstitutional. However, the Presidential ink wasn't very dry on the COPA as the new act is known before the ACLU filed this suit and a federal judge issued an order blocking its enforcement on similar grounds. 

This law differs from the prior Act in that it only applies to commercial sites on the World Wide Web. Supporters had hoped that the new law would be upheld because of its narrow scope plus the fact that "commercial speech" does not enjoy the same level First Amendment protection under the Constitution as other communications. 

News reports of the questioning by the panel of judges indicate this act may not survive either. Keep in mind that this law, like the prior one, does not require that the communication be obscene. Therefore, it would be perfectly legal to communicate this information to adults. 

Two key elements seem to bother the judges based upon their questions during the oral argument. One, the act makes it illegal for a commercial site to allow children to access material that is "unsuitable for minors" based upon "contemporary community standards." One judge asked if it could even be a foreign country such as Iran or Iraq. The lawyer defending the law conceded that the statute does not define which community. 

The other issue centered on the requirement that adult viewers would have to identify themselves by either providing personal information to get a special ID or would have to provide financial information in the form of a credit card. As one justice noted, someone seeking information on homosexuality would have to prove they are old enough to view it by identifying themselves first.  Thus, the law could have a 'chilling' effect on perfectly legitimate communication. 

The Court's decision should be announced in several weeks. As with the CDA, an appeal to the US Supreme Court is almost certain. 
LAW SITE OF THE MONTHHollywood Law Cybercenter 

So you have asked for a new video camera for Christmas and you expect to have your first feature film ready for distribution next summer. Well, you are going to need some tips on the ins and outs of the law of tinsel town.  This site provides hints on licensing, distribution and copyright questions. http://www.hollywoodnetwork.com/Law/  

It even has an article on "Less than Zero—Studio Accounting Practices in Hollywood" to make sure you don't end up penniless while watching your film become a box-office hit. 

"Cut. That's a wrap for this month."