Skip to content
oversight findingVerified

Judge Jackson finds Microsoft liable for monopolisation

On 3 April 2000 Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued conclusions of law finding Microsoft had maintained an OS monopoly by anticompetitive means; a June breakup order followed and was later reversed in part on appeal. In the causal graph this event strengthens Antitrust Pressure in Digital Markets, a driver that strengthens Out-of-School Rate, Primary School Age (global) — a worsening welfare path.

Sources: [1][2]

Read the full account

On 3 April 2000 Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued conclusions of law finding Microsoft had maintained an OS monopoly by anticompetitive means; a June breakup order followed and was later reversed in part on appeal. Gates was still chairman after leaving the CEO chair in January.

Context

Neighbouring 1998 complaint is the filing. Neighbouring 2001 settlement is the ending. An appeal trimmed remedies. He did not sit as the appellate panel.

18 May 1998 complaint is neighbouring. 2 November 2001 settlement is later.

Bill Gates was Microsoft CEO until January 2000, chairman until February 2014, then a technical adviser until 2020, and a Gates Foundation co-chair. That is not authorship of every Windows copy, every GAVI dose, or every IRS schedule. Melinda French Gates is a different person. Bill Clinton is PER-000772, a different person. A pledge is not a coverage rate. A docket is not a personality.

Why it matters

The path is antitrust-pressure: a completed liability finding is an accountability instrument later remade on appeal. A finding is not a breakup that stuck.

Who was responsible

Contribution type and responsibility level for each recorded actor — not sole-author shorthand.

  • Bill Gates

    Person

    Direct responsibility

    responsibility level 0.55 · verified

    He was chairman of the defendant. Jackson wrote. The D.C. Circuit later trimmed. DOJ prosecuted.

What changed

Fact → Driver → Indicator. Relationship strength orders the paths; it is not the observed indicator movement.

Evidence

The sources behind this fact and its verification state.

Verified2 sources on file
  1. 1.Reuters — Judge finds Microsoft violated US antitrust lawReuters · High credibility · verified
  2. 2.US v. Microsoft — conclusions of law, 3 April 2000United States District Court / Department of Justice · High credibility · verified
What the sources establish

United States District Court / Department of Justice carries the official instrument or communique. Reuters records the same dated act independently.

Established: 3 April 2000 liability conclusions, independently reported.

Not established: that the D.C. Circuit affirmed every remedy, or a unique later browser-share coefficient from that morning.

Jackson wrote. The D.C. Circuit later trimmed. DOJ prosecuted.. A later repeal, court stay, or successor order would be a different Fact with a different date. That pair identifies Judge Jackson finds Microsoft liable for monopolisation, not a later speech about Judge Jackson finds Microsoft liable for monopolisation.

Co-authors and later implementers named in Context remain on the file. If a later repeal, stay, or successor instrument exists, it needs its own date and its own row. The contribution described on this Person row is limited to He was chairman of the defendant. Jackson wrote. The D.C. Circuit later trimmed. DOJ prosecuted. That limit is the alternative to treating office-holding as authorship of every later series.

Causal path

How this event connects to drivers and indicators in the graph.

  1. ActorBill Gates
  2. contributed toFactJudge Jackson finds Microsoft liable for monopolisation
  3. strengthensDrivers (2)Antitrust Pressure in Digital Markets
  4. strengthensIndicatorOut-of-School Rate, Primary School Age (global)

Cite this page

Factrail. (2026). Judge Jackson finds Microsoft liable for monopolisation. Factrail. https://factrail.ai/facts/us-v-microsoft-2000

https://factrail.ai/facts/us-v-microsoft-2000

Accessed 15 October 2026.

By the Factrail desk · Method: how we source and score · Last reviewed

Dispute this factNamed here, or represent someone who is? Request a right of reply.