Peter Kaplan
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.
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.
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.
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.