Thankfully, at least one legal eagle seems to think that "Redmond Justice" is still heading for a satisfying series finale-- instead of one in which Microsoft wins its appeal. While we shared many viewers' joy when Judge Jackson flatly denied the Redmond Giant six more months to stall show why a breakup is unwarranted, we were a smidge worried that the judge's "no more process" mandate might give Microsoft a big advantage when the case makes its inevitable way to the appeals court. We can just hear the pouty whining now: "We were denied due proceeeesssss!" And the last thing we want is to see the last two years' worth of courtroom drama suddenly get overturned in the final episode, like that whole who-shot-J.R. it-was-only-a-dream season on Dallas.

That's why we're pleased to read over at The Register that antitrust lawyer and Penn State economics professor Richard Hawkins thinks Microsoft has no more right to claim denial of due process than Steve Jobs has to claim denial of stock options. "The only defendant who got as much 'process' was O.J. Simpson," says he. Jackson is apparently under no obligation whatsoever to hear any more arguments from Microsoft, since his findings of fact are "more than adequate" to support a breakup. And let's not forget that even though Jackson's conclusions of law might be overturned on appeal, his scathing findings of fact are not-- they're etched in stone, meaning that even if the government fails in its bid to break up the company, Microsoft will still be branded a monopoly. That's fodder for any number of civil cases filed by companies and individuals filing their own private antitrust suits.

Reportedly there is one way in which Jackson's findings of fact could be overturned: an appellate court would have to determine that "no rational person" would ever have ruled the way Jackson did. Since we find it highly unlikely that any appeals court will ever call Jackson a slavering, howling, arm-gnawing loon, we can take solace in the fact that whether or not Microsoft gets split up, the findings of fact will live on as a historical record of one company's shameless naughty behavior. Suppose the original document is bound for the Smithsonian?