Yes, but none of the findings of fact were overturned. The judge had been interviewed, which was the issue, not that the facts were in dispute. In the settlement, Microsoft also allowed PC manufacturers to adopt non-Microsoft software.
Absolutely they were, that's what it means that most of Judge Jackson's ruling was overturned, and a new judge was appointed to determine penalties. Jackson wanted to break Microsoft apart and slap them with operating restrictions.
> Absolutely they were, that's what it means that most of Judge Jackson's ruling was overturned
Where is it said that, "most of Judge Jackson's ruling was overturned"?
If you are referring to the link I posted, the actual words were, "The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft."
Then, just five sentences later it says, "However, the appeals court did not overturn the findings of fact."
That's a technical term, because it's incredibly difficult for an Appeals court to overturn findings of fact. It would require finding the Judge clearly erroneous, and they didn't need to go through the hassle.
"In a 125-page unanimous ruling brimming with palpable derision and frustration, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit nullified all three parts of Judge Jackson's ruling in the case and removed the restrictions he placed on the company's business practices, even as it made reference to many of his conclusions."
