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.

If all she was going to do was rubber-stamp the settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft and say that the states get nothing, she could have done that in two or three months. I think it means the states are going to get something.

It might not be resolved for another two years. No one should count their winnings yet.

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.