Thomas Penfield Jackson (January 10, 1937 – June 15, 2013) was an American jurist who served as a United States District federal judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Education and career Born in Washington, D.C., Jackson graduated from Dartmouth College with an Artium Baccalaureus degree in the class of 1958, and from Harvard Law School with a Bachelor of Laws in 1964. He served in the United States Navy from 1958 to 1961. He was in private practice in Washington, D.C. from 1964 to 1982. He served as President of the District of Columbia Bar Association. Federal judicial service Jackson was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on May 24, 1982, to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia vacated by Judge Oliver Gasch. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 24, 1982, and received commission on June 25, 1982. He assumed senior status on January 31, 2002. His service terminated on August 31, 2004, due to retirement. Microsoft case Jackson is perhaps best known to the public as the presiding judge in the United States v. Microsoft case. Jackson was the first in a series of judges worldwide to determine that Microsoft abused its market position and monopoly power in ways that were highly detrimental to innovation in the industry and consumers of the products. The summary paragraph in his findings of fact is quoted below. Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest. Microsoft attempted to show that the judge's conduct during the case demonstrated that he unfairly favored the prosecution, but they failed to do so in court proceedings. He did speak to a reporter off the record after the evidence in the case had