Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Thomas Penfield Jackson
Thomas Penfield Jackson (January 10, 1937 – June 15, 2013) was an American jurist who served as a U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia from 1982 to 2004.
Born in Washington, D.C., Jackson graduated from Dartmouth College with an Artium Baccalaureus degree in the class of 1958, and from Harvard Law School with a Bachelor of Laws in 1964. He served in the United States Navy from 1958 to 1961. He was in private practice in Washington, D.C. from 1964 to 1982. He served as President of the District of Columbia Bar Association.
Jackson was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on May 24, 1982, to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia vacated by Judge Oliver Gasch. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 24, 1982, and received commission on June 25, 1982. He assumed senior status on January 31, 2002. His service terminated on August 31, 2004, due to retirement.
in 2000, as presiding judge, he ruled in favor of Terry A. Anderson and awarded Anderson $324 million from frozen Iranian assets due to Anderson's captivity in Lebanon under Shia Hezbollah militants of the Islamic Jihad Organization who are designated by the United States State Department as Iranian government supported terrorists. The basis of Anderson's case was from a 1996 anti-terrorism law which allowed United States citizens, who are victims of terrorism abroad, to sue foreign governments for damages.
Jackson is perhaps best known to the public as the presiding judge in the 2001 antitrust United States v. Microsoft case. Jackson was the first in a series of judges[citation needed] worldwide to determine that Microsoft abused its market position and monopoly power in ways that were highly detrimental to innovation in the industry and consumers of the products. The summary paragraph in his findings of fact is quoted below.
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.
Microsoft attempted to show that Jackson's conduct during the case demonstrated that he unfairly favored the prosecution, but they failed to do so in court proceedings. He did speak to a reporter off the record after the evidence in the case had been heard but prior to issuing his conclusions of law, and this was contrary to judicial rules. Speaking with that reporter he expressed unfavorable opinions and statements about Microsoft and its employees which he had developed as a result of hearing the evidence and witnesses in the trial. Speaking about Microsoft executives, he compared them to "stubborn mules who should be walloped with a two-by-four" and "gangland killers", referring to a murder case he presided over four years earlier:
On the day of the sentencing, the gang members maintained that they had done nothing wrong, saying that the whole case was a conspiracy by the white power structure to destroy them. I am now under no illusions that miscreants will realize that other parts of society view them that way."
Hub AI
Thomas Penfield Jackson AI simulator
(@Thomas Penfield Jackson_simulator)
Thomas Penfield Jackson
Thomas Penfield Jackson (January 10, 1937 – June 15, 2013) was an American jurist who served as a U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia from 1982 to 2004.
Born in Washington, D.C., Jackson graduated from Dartmouth College with an Artium Baccalaureus degree in the class of 1958, and from Harvard Law School with a Bachelor of Laws in 1964. He served in the United States Navy from 1958 to 1961. He was in private practice in Washington, D.C. from 1964 to 1982. He served as President of the District of Columbia Bar Association.
Jackson was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on May 24, 1982, to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia vacated by Judge Oliver Gasch. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 24, 1982, and received commission on June 25, 1982. He assumed senior status on January 31, 2002. His service terminated on August 31, 2004, due to retirement.
in 2000, as presiding judge, he ruled in favor of Terry A. Anderson and awarded Anderson $324 million from frozen Iranian assets due to Anderson's captivity in Lebanon under Shia Hezbollah militants of the Islamic Jihad Organization who are designated by the United States State Department as Iranian government supported terrorists. The basis of Anderson's case was from a 1996 anti-terrorism law which allowed United States citizens, who are victims of terrorism abroad, to sue foreign governments for damages.
Jackson is perhaps best known to the public as the presiding judge in the 2001 antitrust United States v. Microsoft case. Jackson was the first in a series of judges[citation needed] worldwide to determine that Microsoft abused its market position and monopoly power in ways that were highly detrimental to innovation in the industry and consumers of the products. The summary paragraph in his findings of fact is quoted below.
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.
Microsoft attempted to show that Jackson's conduct during the case demonstrated that he unfairly favored the prosecution, but they failed to do so in court proceedings. He did speak to a reporter off the record after the evidence in the case had been heard but prior to issuing his conclusions of law, and this was contrary to judicial rules. Speaking with that reporter he expressed unfavorable opinions and statements about Microsoft and its employees which he had developed as a result of hearing the evidence and witnesses in the trial. Speaking about Microsoft executives, he compared them to "stubborn mules who should be walloped with a two-by-four" and "gangland killers", referring to a murder case he presided over four years earlier:
On the day of the sentencing, the gang members maintained that they had done nothing wrong, saying that the whole case was a conspiracy by the white power structure to destroy them. I am now under no illusions that miscreants will realize that other parts of society view them that way."