Microsoft XP violates antitrust laws, say rivals

Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON: With the lower court's landmark antitrust case still under review by a federal appeals court, a group funded by Microsoft competitors likened the move to Microsoft's decision to weld its Internet Explorer browser into Windows 98, a step that touched off the antitrust charges against the company.

"This is yet the latest example of how Microsoft has routinely used 'bolting' practices both to violate the Consent Decree it agreed to in 1995, as well as both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act," said the Project to Promote Competition and Innovation in the Digital Age, also known as Procomp.

A Microsoft spokesman said customers will have to buy Windows XP to get the new sound and video player. But he denied any violation of antitrust laws, repeating the company's oft-stated position that competitors are trying to prevent it from improving Windows.

"What our competitors seem to want is for us to stop innovating and improving our products," said Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan. Microsoft's media player competes with RealNetworks Inc. RealPlayer and Apple Computer Inc.'s Quicktime software.

In making their latest accusation, Microsoft's competitors are hoping to dissuade officials in the Bush Administration from agreeing to a "wrist-slap" settlement with the company, said Procomp spokesman Mike Pettit.

Antitrust attorneys in Washington are expecting the US Appeals Court to overturn a large part of the sweeping, lower court ruling against Microsoft, including the order splitting the company in two. That would probably prompt the Justice Department to settle the case, with Microsoft agreeing to a set of restrictions on its future business behavior.

The seven-judge appeals court panel heard arguments on the case in February, and a ruling on the case could come at any time. "We're just pointing out why that is really an absurd proposition," said Procomp spokesman Mike Pettit. "How are you going to having a behavioral remedy that could be effective if they didn't live up to the last one."

But Cullinan said the new accusations are "the reverse" of the argument the government presented during the trial. In court, the Justice Department said the company violated antitrust laws, and an earlier consent decree it had signed, by forcing consumers to take Internet Explorer with the ubiquitous Windows operating system.

In its latest complaint, Procomp is saying the company is forcing consumers to buy Windows XP to get the new media player. "I wish folks would make up their mind about what position they're going to take on this," Cullinan said.

Pettit insisted that the two cases boil down to the same issue. "They're doing it differently, but the legal argument is just the same," Pettit said. "They promised to the court and they agreed with the government not to condition the sale of one thing on another."

<P class="smartcomment>(C)Reuters Limited 2001.