Advertisment

Judge says Microsoft antitrust disclosure adequate

author-image
CIOL Bureau
New Update

Peter Kaplan

Advertisment

WASHINGTON: A federal judge on Tuesday rejected criticism that Microsoft

Corp. failed to disclose fully the machinations that led to its antitrust

settlement with the Justice Department. US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

ruled that Microsoft had provided enough details about its contacts with the

government to satisfy the legal requirements for antitrust settlements.

"Although Microsoft clearly could have been more fulsome in its

descriptions, because the statute does not mandate the release of particular

details relevant to a defendant's communications with the United States, the

court finds that Microsoft's disclosure is sufficient to satisfy (the

law)," Kollar-Kotelly said in the ruling.

Companies are required to disclose their government contacts under the law

that governs antitrust settlements, known as the Tunney Act. Under the Tunney

Act, Kollar-Kotelly is charged with determining whether the Justice Department

settlement, reached in November, is in the public interest.

Advertisment

In Tuesday's ruling, the judge took a preliminary step toward that decision,

concluding that Microsoft and the department had complied with all the legal

requirements in negotiating the settlement. "We're pleased the court

affirmed our position," said Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler.

Critics had complained Microsoft's bare-bones disclosure, submitted to the

judge in December, contained so few details it was practically useless. The

filing disclosed no lobbying for the settlement beyond contact between its legal

counsel and some company officials with state and federal prosecutors during

negotiations.

The brevity of the disclosure irritated opponents of the settlement who say

the incoming administration of President George W. Bush rushed to settle the

case that was launched in 1998 under the Clinton administration.

Advertisment

But in Tuesday's decision, the judge said the Tunney Act requires only

"information sufficient to inform the court as to whether there has been

some improper contact between the United States and the defendant." She

also concluded the law does not require the company to disclose its contacts

with lawmakers in Congress, as some critics had argued.

"The details demanded by (critics) go well beyond this basic function

and likely would do little to inform the court's assessment of the public

interest," the judge wrote. In addition to the Tunney Act endorsement, the

judge is also considering a more severe set of antitrust sanctions proposed by

nine states that have refused to settle with Microsoft.

The nine states still pursuing the case are California, Connecticut, Florida,

Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia, plus the District

of Columbia. The hold-out states say stricter sanctions are needed to protect

new technologies such as Internet services and handheld computers from any

anti-competitive tactics.

Advertisment

Microsoft has argued the restrictions being sought by the states would

benefit only competitors and would deprive consumers of a reliable platform for

software.

Last June, a federal appeals court upheld trial court findings that Microsoft

illegally maintained its Windows monopoly in personal computer operating systems

by acts that included commingling Web browser code with Windows to fend off

Netscape's rival browser.

The appellate judges rejected breaking the company in two to prevent future

antitrust violations, but sent the case to a new judge, Kollar-Kotelly, to

consider the best remedy.

(C) Reuters Limited.

tech-news