# Judge Jackson finds Microsoft liable for monopolisation Date: 2000 ## The fact 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](/people/bill-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. ## Evidence and sources United States District Court / Department of Justice carries the official instrument or communique. Reuters records the same dated act independently. ## Significance 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. ## What is established and what is not 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. What would change the picture: a contradictory original with a different date or name, a later repeal, a court that vacated the instrument, or a measured series that can be argued, with lag and alternatives, as a consequence of this instrument rather than of later institutions. The date is the date of this instrument, not a licence to back-date every later harm or benefit. 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. Judge Jackson finds Microsoft liable for monopolisation on 2000-04-03 is not a licence to treat every later United States District Court / Department of Justice communique as this same act. If a later repeal, stay, or successor instrument exists, it needs its own date and its own row. This dossier refuses to average Judge Jackson finds Microsoft liable for monopolisation into a personality. 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. ## People - Bill Gates: https://factrail.ai/people/bill-gates ## Drivers - Antitrust Pressure in Digital Markets: https://factrail.ai/drivers/antitrust-pressure-in-digital-markets - Digital-Platform Power Concentration: https://factrail.ai/drivers/digital-platform-power-concentration ## Sources - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-ruling-idUSKCN0Q70K4 - https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/conclusions-law-0 ## Methodology https://factrail.ai/methodology Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/us-v-microsoft-2000