The full text of the decision is a long but pretty interesting read. It makes some very strong and detailed statements concerning Microsoft's wrongdoings, and it is very well written. I would consider this a slap in the face for Microsoft.
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=T-201/04
(Click "T201/04 Judgment")

Let's see if Microsoft files for another appeal. "No, the original court and all the 13 judges in this appeal were wrong, we want an umpteenth opinion on this!"

Thinking of this as a farce is actually nice. In farces, bad guys never win over the little people, and everything ends well. Tomorrow is probably not going to be the end of the farce, but it could be a quite significant change of roles for the actors, sort of like the pivotal twist which paves the way for a happy ending. I guess we'll know in about 12 hours.

In the past their communication strategy was absolutely inappropriate. They insulted the Commission and played every single trick. It is important that the farce will end. But not the way as in the US.

That decision should appear roughly simultaneously on the court's docket at this website

A second page where the notice and a link to the decision are likely to appear early is the Court's "future decisions" page, which tracks final
decisions in cases as they are released for a few days on a first-in, first-out basis. Link.

The court is located in Brussels, so remember time zone differences, if relevant. Brussels will still be on time zones Central Europe Summer Time, GMT/UTC +2.

The Court's judgment is in the hands of a 13-judge panel presided over by Court of First Instance President Bo Vesterdorf, a Danish lawyer. Vesterdorf has previously announced that he plans to retire the same day the decision is released.

The case was first assigned to a smaller panel headed by Judge Hubert Legal. However, the case was reassigned after an article written by Judge Legal was publicized that referred to unnamed other judges' law clerks as "ayatollahs of free enterprise," suggesting that they might have been influencing some judges. See Groklaw, EU MS: Judge Hubert Legal Is Kicked Off the Case.

The public filings in the Court of First Instance are linked from the Court's page with the very long URL linked above. The New York Times, by way
of FreePress, has released an article anticipating the decision's release., as have other publications. The Times
cites unnamed sources for a prediction that the decision will be a cut-the-baby-in-half decision. Personally, as a retired trial lawyer, I'd much prefer betting on horses than betting on judges; horses are far more predictable.

A concise 2-page summary of Microsoft's grounds for appeal was published in the Official Journal of the European Union in May, 2004.

Please note that proceedings in the Court of First Instance are far less transparent than judicial proceedings in the U.S and there is little
information about which issues will actually be decided other than the Court's decision denying Microsoft's request for the DG Competition order to
be stayed pending appeal. That decision is linked from Groklaw.

OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION

• DG Competition home page for the Microsoft case
• Microsoft PressPass home page for the case.

NOTE

The Court's decision on Monday may heavily influence DG Competition's ongoing investigation of Microsoft for alleged antitrust violations
involving, inter alia, refusal to disclose its binary Office file formats and its undermining of the OpenDocument international standard with
Microsoft Office Open XML. The organization that filed the relevant complaint based much of it on principles established in the 2004 DG
Competition decision and is a party to the appeal in the Court of First Instance. See analysis and links; ECIS web site.

BUCK "MARBUX" MARTIN
Director of Legal Affairs
OpenDocument Foundation