Advertisment

Microsoft to file in support of its appeal

author-image
CIOL Bureau
Updated On
New Update

WASHINGTON: Microsoft Corporation will argue against findings that it violated antitrust law and an order that the company be split in two in a filing due Monday with the US Court of Appeals. The software giant's brief is the first of written arguments due over the next three months, ahead of oral presentations by Microsoft and the government to the court scheduled for late February.



"Our brief will outline a full and powerful argument for why the District Court's judgment should be reversed and judgment should be granted for Microsoft," said company spokesman Jim Cullinan last week. On June 7, US District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found Microsoft used its monopoly power in personal computer operating systems to compete illegally. He said the software giant should be split in two to prevent future violations but stayed the order pending appeals.



The US Justice Department and states, which brought the case, had urged the US Supreme Court to directly hear the company's appeal but the high court sided with Microsoft and sent the case to the lower appellate court which ruled for the company in a related case in 1998.



Ron Cass, Dean of Boston University's law school and a consultant to Microsoft, expects the appeals court will ultimately reverse the District Court on at least several aspects and direct Jackson to reconsider the breakup remedy. Cass thinks Microsoft has a very good chance of getting the appeals court to overturn Jackson's finding that the software company integrated its Internet browser into the Windows operating system to quell competition rather than out of any technical necessity or business efficiency.



"There is a heavy burden on the government to show why that integration is improper and undermined competition," Cass said, "not that it simply hurts rivals, but why it hurts consumers."



The Appeals Court in 1998 had reversed a preliminary injunction handed down by Jackson that would have stopped Microsoft from insisting computer makers install Internet Explorer along with its Windows 95 operating system. Cass also believes Jackson's decision lacks the detailed pricing analysis typical of most antitrust cases that is needed to show whether the company charged monopoly prices and harmed consumers.



"If we find you didn't commit murder and you didn't commit grand theft, even if we conclude you may have committed a traffic violation, perhaps the death penalty is no longer in order," Cass quipped. But Mike Petit, who heads the ProComp organization that includes Microsoft opponents, said Microsoft was in danger of over-relying on the 1998 reversal by the appeals court and misreading its meaning.



"The standard even in that case was that Microsoft had to demonstrate some efficiency in putting a browser and an operating system together," said Petit, "Microsoft failed to get over that hurdle in the (recent) trial." The US government is scheduled to file its reply Jan. 12, 2001. The states, currently due to file separately, have asked the court's permission to file a joint brief with the federal government.



The dates of Feb. 26-27 have been set aside for oral arguments. Whatever the outcome, the case seems certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court, barring any settlement between the parties. The result of the disputed US presidential election could play a role, with speculation that an administration under Republican George W. Bush would be inclined to cut a deal with Microsoft if the company wins at the appeals court level.

(C) Reuters Limited 2000.

tech-news