Judge quizzes Microsoft, states on sanctions

Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON: A federal judge on Wednesday sharply questioned attorneys on both

sides of the Microsoft Corp. antitrust case, still weighing how far-reaching

sanctions against the software giant should be.

US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly quizzed lawyers in the landmark case

about whether she should impose sanctions on Microsoft that cover products like

handheld computers and network servers, and whether she should order the company

to make features of its Windows operating system removable.

Kollar-Kotelly said legal precedent gave her broad powers to impose

restrictions on Microsoft, as long as they are aimed at misdeeds that are of the

same type or class as those in the court rulings against the company.

But she challenged an attorney for nine states pressing for strong sanctions

against Microsoft to defend their far-reaching demands, including one that would

require Microsoft to offer a version of Windows that can have features stripped

out and replaced by rival software.

These nine states, including California, Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut,

have refused to sign on to a settlement Microsoft reached in November with the

Justice Department and nine other states. The dissenting states say a modular

version of Windows is needed because an appeals court ruled that Microsoft had

illegally "commingled" computer code of its Internet Explorer browser

with the operating system to defeat a rival browser produced by Netscape.

Hiding icons



Microsoft argues that Windows would not work properly with some features
removed. Under the proposed settlement with the Justice Department, Microsoft

would let computer makers hide desktop icons for some Windows features.

Kollar-Kotelly pressed the states on that point. "It appears that

restoration of end-user access would cure the ill effects of commingling,"

she told states attorney Steve Kuney. The demand "seems to go beyond the

fairly limited discussion by the court of appeals on commingling."

Kuney countered that stripping out Microsoft computer code was the only way

to restore competition and comply with the appeals court ruling. "To us it

is an unremedied ongoing violation," he said. The judge also goaded the

states to back up their argument that the sanctions should be designed to

protect products that have emerged since the case began four years ago, such as

interactive television set-top boxes.

Kuney argued that the products should be included because they were potential

threats to the Windows monopoly. "It sounds like any new technology would

be presented as a platform threat," the judge told the states' lawyers. But

the judge also had some sharp questions for Microsoft's attorneys as well. She

asked them to explain how the settlement would address the commingling

violation.

Microsoft attorneys cited a report from one of the states' own economists,

who said that removing the icons for Windows features would strike "an

excellent balance" by giving consumers a choice of software features

without damaging Windows.

A federal appeals court last June upheld the original trial court's finding

that Microsoft illegally maintained its Windows monopoly. But the appellate

judges rejected breaking the company in two and sent the case back to a new

judge, Kollar-Kotelly, to consider the most appropriate remedy.

Last Friday, Microsoft's final witness left the stand, ending 32 days of

testimony -- including an appearance by company chairman Bill Gates -- on how

the company's antitrust violations should be remedied.