The trouble, of course, is that this isn't only about Gates. Microsoft has undeniably created immense public benefits. Personal computers have generally standardized around one operating system. This simplification has reduced learning costs for both computer amateurs and professionals. It has encouraged the writing of applications software.
Innovation seems to have flourished.
Against these gains are possible losses from Microsoft's unfair competitive behavior. A judge is supposed to sift through all the conflicting claims for the public good. Judge Jackson didn't. He made no attempt to balance the public-welfare gains from Microsoft with the losses. Nor did he consider how new technologies may alter traditional views about market dominance.