In United States vs Microsoft, a 2001 anti-trust case in which the DoJ, 18 states and the District of Columbia alleged that Microsoft had abused its monopoly position was heard by Judge Jackson and he found for the plaintiffs and ordered the company to be broken into two separate units.
However, the judgement was overturned on appeal with the appeal judge accusing Judge Jackson of unethical behaviour to which Judge Jackson replied that Microsoft executives had
proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive and transparently false ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior executives are not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of wrong-doing.
Q. Given that his findings of fact were not overturned why was Judge Jacksons original ruling overturned by the appeals court?