Talk:Thomas Penfield Jackson

Untitled
RickK, JonGwynne, shall we discuss this? Overtly-biased was probably over the line, but the other comments did contain fact, and, perhaps RickK should have edited them instead of reverting? -- Baylink 16:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, in this particular situation, I think "overtly biased" is actually NPOV because that was the ruling of the US Appellate Court and the basis for them to overturn his findings. So, I would argue that when I say his were "overtly biased", I'm not expressing my personal point-of-view but rather reporting the findings of the higher court.  I changed it to "extremely controversial" anyway as a gesture of compromise.  However, if everyone agrees, I'd like to go back to "overtly biased" because, as I said, it is not only an accurate characterization but is fair comment.  BTW, I think it is important to say that he was "overtly biased" so that there is no chance of someone inferring that the bias was hidden (i.e. covert) or underhanded.  He made no effort to cover up the bias which was to his credit.  Anyway, he really was extraordinarily out of line.  I watched his conduct on TV while the case was going on in absolute shock - as did many.  It was as if he was trying to either become famous as the quintessential example of how not to handle a high-profile case and thus guarantee his immortality in US law-school lectures for the rest of time or that he'd just "lost it" and was ready to be put out to pasture.  The funny thing is that I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft but his conduct actually had me taking their side in things.  They've done some pretty unforgivable things in their history, but Jackson turned the opportunity to hold them accountable into a farce.   The fact that a judge would speak this way about the principles of a case is bad enough but to do it in public and while the case is still pending is simply "off-the-charts".--JonGwynne 17:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * p.s. Rick, I have the page on my watch-list, you don't have to write to me on my user page.--JonGwynne 17:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if the ruling used those words, you could have avoided the NPOV fracas by slightly different phrasing to make that point clearer. (And you still can :-)  I personally don't have a problem with it now, but RickK, if you still do, I'd suggest either editing to fix, or calling Jon on the specific places he needs to quote-mark and reference better. --Baylink 19:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's be fair here...
For this article to be anything close to fair, you'd have to mention the rather blatant lying that microsoft's legal team tried to get away with during the trial. Jackson didn't start out with anything against MS, he became disgusted with them after they lied to him several times in the course of the trial. That little stunt with the edited videotape, for one thing...


 * You're certainly free to add mention of that to the article on the trial. However, it isn't relevant here.--JonGwynne 01:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Jon, you are clearly not at all objective on this subject. Give it a rest.


 * So you say whoever-you-are... care to point out any factual mistakes in the article? I'm not the one saying that Jackson behaved in an astonishingly out-of-line manner, the US Court of Appeals were the ones who smacked him on the nose with the proverbial rolled-up newspaper.  If you have a beef, take it to them.--JonGwynne 17:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Jon, you can report the findings of the appeals court without your shrill denounciations of the Judge. Sure, it sucks that MS beat the rap, and that Jackson may have shared responsibility for that, (although realistically it was Clinton's loss of the election that gave them a walk), but you are still way out of line here.


 * Sorry, whoever-you-are, but you didn't point out any factual mistakes so I'm going to put the original version back. I'm going to assume that since you're going to get snippy about this (e.g.  "shrill denuciations", "POV ravings") you don't have any substantive contributions to offer.  BTW, you're wrong about Clinton's election loss being a factor.  I assume you're talking about the fact that the Democrats lost the White House in 2000.  Clinton didn't run; he wasn't eligible to run again and probably wouldn't have run even if he had been because of the impeachment scandal.--JonGwynne 00:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "MS beat the rap" Meaning that Microsoft and not Netscape got to be the monopolist? Awwww, poor guys. 64.111.151.184 (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Other cases?
There's already an article on the Microsoft case. I think a biography ought to be more broad than this one issue. I came to Wikipedia to look him up after catching this reference -- -- in which Jackson dismissed a murder case involving the American bombing of two Libyan cities. The article has him comparing Microsoft to gangland murders, but there's no mention of that, either, here. I think this article needs to be much broader, and to include some personal information. --Thatnewguy 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Small background item here ... Also a follow-up article in the Wall Street Journal is available to those with a subscription. --Thatnewguy 03:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"unfairly favored the prosecution"?
I have tagged this since there is no citation that supports this claim and I can only find references to the "appearance of impartiality". Captain Nemo III (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro MS propaganda
This article was terribly and deceptively written, very likely by a source with a strong pro MS bias. The article had read as if the judge was biased and had been found to have been biased, neither of which was found to be the case. Had the judge been found to have bias, they would have thrown out the case and his rulings. To the contrary, almost all of the judges rulings were upheld on appeal. I do not know the author, but given the business practices which MS has repeated been found guilty of (see EU anti trust conviction September 17 2007) one cannot exclude the possibility that MS has paid to have this written in a fashion favorable to MS. But this is Wikipedia. I'll check the article again in a few months to see if the Softies have rewritten it again to make it appear as if the judge should be on trial, not the repeatedly convicted predatory monopolist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfolk (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "predatory monopolist" What does that mean exactly? This isn't the place to bash Microsoft, guys; it's tasteless, ignorant, and unbecoming. Grow up. 64.111.151.184 (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Predatory monopolist- This is a term of art in the US legal system, and this is what the US legal system found Microsoft to be. Please refer to the following for details and description- and I believe you will find there was nothing ignorant about the above comment. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f225600/225658.htm http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=108&CFID=7094732&CFTOKEN=36373950&jsessionid=a830a48297defd2c0f89781320243e3a9731 http://www.linfo.org/monopoly_predatory_tactics.html http://www.albion.com/microsoft/findings.html

In the interest of accuracy, I had edited the text on judge Jackson. I stand by my initial comments. I think the fact that you did not know what the term "predatory monopoly" meant, yet you stated I was ignorant...well, I will let unbiased readers review the facts and come to their own conclusion. My objective was to begin to restore some level of accuracy to the original text.Dfolk (talk)

Bot-created subpage
A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Thomas Penfield Jackson was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Thomas Penfield Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120524145641/http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-214993.html to http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-214993.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thomas Penfield Jackson.jpg