Re:reason why decision was on Friday at 6:30... (Score 1)

That's not quite true.

Basically, the distinction between matters of fact and matters of law on appeal is this: The appeals court judge is presumed to be able to judge the law as well as the trial court judge did; and the appeals court judge may well have a better overall knowledge of the law--after all, there's presumably a reason why that judge was appointed to the appeals court to begin with. So the appeals court judge is entitled to review most issues of law de novo--considering them from scratch, and giving the original judge's findings no weight at all.

On the other hand, when considering issues of fact, a judge (or a jury) often has to analyze things in a way that would be very difficult for an appeals judge to fully recreate. For example, the findings of fact are often heavily dependent on the judge's or jury's views on the credibility of the witnesses; and it's often much easier to judge someone's credibility when they're sitting in the courtroom than it is from just reading their words on a transcript, or even seeing them on tape. So, in considering findings of fact, the appeals judge is required to give heavy deference to the findings of the trial judge and/or the jury; the appeals judge is usually only allowed to reverse findings of fact in the case of "plain error"--overwhelming evidence that the finding of fact was wrong.

By the way, here's my own spin on the findings of fact: I get the feeling that the judge is somewhat frustrated with the whole thing. As we've learned so far from following all this (and as Microsoft is so fond of pointing out), the antitrust law in areas like this is very limited; the courts are very disinclined to get involved in the engineering details of software. The DC court of appeals has already overruled the trial judge during this case; and, if the conclusions of law go the government's way (as it's almost certain that they will), I wouldn't be at all surprised if the appeals court reverses many of them. So the judge may be using the findings of fact to make his own statement about the inadequacy of the antitrust law in this area; the message of the trial may wind up being 'Even if the facts are this clearcut, the law still doesn't provide a remedy.'

(Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL. Not to be taken internally. May cause drowsiness; alcohol may intensify this effect.)