It's not that likely that the Supreme Court will take the case. This law has only been used two times - both times in the AT&T antitrust case - so it's rarely, rarely used.

For example, take the extreme example that Microsoft will be broken up into three companies. That won't happen until the appeals are exhausted. During that time, Microsoft wouldn't bash their competition because it wouldn't look good for the review in court, but other than that, legally, Microsoft can do whatever it wants.

The allegations are despicable, ... The suspects will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Microsoft makes a pretty powerful case that they need more time. The idea of a breakup wasn't raised officially until April 28, so this hearing comes less than a month later.

Judge Jackson's ruling contains no legal analysis. I thought the judge would explain why his order was consistent with precedent. The lack of analysis makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will refuse to take the case directly. Jackson issued the ruling too fast.

She wants to be really sure that there's no inconsistencies. Microsoft is going to appeal anyway, but one of the things they would say is that she's being inconsistent.