Microsoft judge will rule today

Zardon · Nov 1, 2002, 03:59 PM

The federal judge overseeing Microsoft's antitrust case is likely to uphold the company's settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice when she issues her ruling today, according to several legal experts tracking the case.

But the bigger question — the one people from Redmond to Wall Street, and from Silicon Valley to Washington, D.C., are anxiously awaiting — is whether U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will place additional sanctions on the company.

That won't be known until she hands down the ruling, expected at 1:30 p.m. Pacific time.

The court's announcement yesterday that the decision was coming prompted a flurry of speculation. The decision may end the 4-year-old case or it may set the stage for further appeals that drag on for at least another year.

Kollar-Kotelly will rule whether the settlement between Microsoft and the Justice Department and nine states, reached last November, goes far enough to protect the public interest. She also is expected to decide whether to impose any of the additional remedies called for by nine other states and the District of Columbia that believe the settlement did not go far enough.

Microsoft is likely to appeal if the judge comes down on it too harshly. But the states may appeal if the judge does not impose sanctions beyond the settlement.

full article in the forum

Zardon · Nov 1, 2002, 04:00 PM

Kollar-Kotelly is ruling, rather than calling for more negotiations, she's likely to approve the settlement, said Andy Gavil, a law professor at Howard University who has been following the case closely.

In the past, judges who were inclined to reject such settlements first called for negotiations in hopes of improving them, he said.

"In a sense, it suggests she's going to approve," he said.

If she rejects the settlement, Microsoft is likely to appeal, perhaps in alliance with the Justice Department, he said.

Microsoft and the Justice Department declined comment on the ruling and possible appeals. "Like everybody else involved in this case, we await the ruling from the District Court," Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said.

Nor would the states comment on whether they would pursue the case further, although a spokeswoman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said he is "committed to arguing for tougher remedies in the interest of consumers."

"We're waiting to see like everyone else what she orders," Lockyer spokeswoman Sandra Michioku said.

Microsoft will probably face remedies over and above those in the settlement, said Ernest Gellhorn, a law professor at George Mason University.

"My instinct is that the judge will uphold the DOJ-Microsoft settlement, yet also add some conditions in a separate decree at the request of the nonsigning states," he said. "But we'll find out if that is right or even close."

The suit already has contributed to a decline in Microsoft's formerly stellar stock and forced the sometimes-brash company to acknowledge the harsh effects of its behavior and to become a self-avowed more "responsible" part of the technology industry.

War and economic malaise are now a bigger concern of the federal government, but competitors and several states are still pressing for additional restrictions on the world's largest software company, including measures that Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has said may jeopardize his company's future.

Microsoft said it already is abiding by most of the settlement. Among other things, the agreement requires the company to more equitably license its Windows operating system to computer makers, and bars it from retaliating against companies that sell PCs with competing software.

Microsoft also has to share formerly secret software code enabling other programs to work well with Windows, so that it does not have an unfair advantage in developing new products.

States including California, Utah and Iowa also want Microsoft to sell stripped-down versions of Windows without a built-in Internet browser and media player. They also want the company to share more of its software code, including its browser code, with competitors.

A series of rulings has upheld the case against Microsoft, but the company has so far lessened the penalties through appeals.

The last major ruling was a U.S. Court of Appeals decision in July 2001 finding Microsoft liable for illegally maintaining its monopoly on computer operating systems.

That court declined to break the company in two, as U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered in 2000, but it directed Kollar-Kotelly to impose remedies that would restore competition to the software industry.

It also found Microsoft liable for its anticompetitive behavior, a decision that has become the basis for private antitrust suits later filed by Netscape Communications and Sun Microsystems.

After the economic downturn following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Kollar-Kotelly ordered Microsoft, the Justice Department and 18 states pursuing the case to reach a settlement. A year ago on Halloween, they reached a tentative deal, filed with the judge Nov. 2, but nine states said it was too lenient and argued additional remedies were necessary.

The split among the states sent the case into uncharted waters. Kollar-Kotelly can approve or reject the settlement but not tinker with it directly. However, she can supplement it by selecting among the states' proposed remedies.

Kollar-Kotelly's mandate from the Court of Appeals is clearer. It cited a Supreme Court case in which remedies were supposed to "unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct" and to "terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the future." Peter Dudley, Seattle Times

kinetic · Nov 1, 2002, 10:31 PM

Judge OKs Microsoft Antitrust Settlement

November 01, 2002 05:08 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday endorsed the antitrust settlement that Microsoft Corp. reached with the U.S. government and nine states a year ago, in a victory for the software giant that was cheered by investors.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rejected the alternative demands of nine other states saying they "present little, if any, legitimate justification for these remedies and in most instances these proposals are not supported by any economic analysis."

There was no immediate word on whether the nine states, which had rejected the settlement as too weak to stop Microsoft's illegal behavior, would appeal Kollar-Kotelly's decision.

Shares of Microsoft, which had been down ahead of word of the ruling, rose $1.74 to $54.74 in after hours trading.

An appeals court ruling in June 2001 upheld trial court findings that Microsoft had illegally maintained its Windows operating system monopoly, but rejected breaking the company in two. The case was then transferred to Kollar-Kotelly to determine the appropriate remedies in the case.

Microsoft reached the settlement with the Justice Department and nine states in November 2001 after Kollar-Kotelly urged the parties to reach an agreement.

The settlement gives computer makers greater freedom to feature rival software on their machines by allowing them to hide some Microsoft icons on the Windows desktop.

Microsoft is prohibited from retaliating under the settlement against those who choose non-Microsoft products. Nor could it enter into agreements that require the exclusive support of some Microsoft software.

Under the settlement, Windows will be sold under a standard license to the major computer makers, although discounts would still be allowed according to the volume of the order.

The nine states that declined to settle were California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia, plus the District of Columbia.

These non-settling states had asked for greater disclosure of Microsoft's code to allow rival software to work better with Windows.

They had also sought a version of Windows with removable add-on features to create opportunities for competing versions of features like Internet browsers and media players.

Microsoft has long argued the restrictions sought by the states would benefit rivals like AOL Time Warner and Sun Microsystems Inc., and would deprive consumers of a reliable platform for software.

digitalwanderer · Nov 1, 2002, 10:47 PM

Damn all of you who voted for Bush to hell in a handbasket! You SEE what you get, do you SEE?!? Did anyone really think Ashcroft was going to allow this puppy to go any other way?!?! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!! (No offense intended to anyone, I'm just pissed that we came SO close to actually making M$ pay this time.

)

vk2amv · Nov 2, 2002, 11:34 AM

I think it is a great decision. I am not a real heavy MS pusher but I just think that what the remaining nine states wanted would have just caused no end of problems. I support this decision.

Kelsenellenelvian · Nov 2, 2002, 12:04 PM

Yes we win neeneer neeneer Imac SUCKS....

digitalwanderer · Nov 2, 2002, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vk2amv
I think it is a great decision. I am not a real heavy MS pusher but I just think that what the remaining nine states wanted would have just caused no end of problems. I support this decision.

Do you have any idea what this "great decision" is?!? Did you read the sucker and translate the legalese at all into english and see that this is less than a slap on the wrist with more loopholes than our current tax code in this country?!?

If they wanted to just drop the case, bend over, and let M$ have their way with us without lubricant than they just should have done it....this "decision" is just a smokescreen for doing the same thing.

It's bu$ine$$ as usual with the U$ government and the current admini$tration in office. Personally, I think it's the Pre$ident'$ fault.

Nov 1, 2002, 03:59 PM	#1
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	Microsoft judge will rule today The federal judge overseeing Microsoft's antitrust case is likely to uphold the company's settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice when she issues her ruling today, according to several legal experts tracking the case. But the bigger question — the one people from Redmond to Wall Street, and from Silicon Valley to Washington, D.C., are anxiously awaiting — is whether U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will place additional sanctions on the company. That won't be known until she hands down the ruling, expected at 1:30 p.m. Pacific time. The court's announcement yesterday that the decision was coming prompted a flurry of speculation. The decision may end the 4-year-old case or it may set the stage for further appeals that drag on for at least another year. Kollar-Kotelly will rule whether the settlement between Microsoft and the Justice Department and nine states, reached last November, goes far enough to protect the public interest. She also is expected to decide whether to impose any of the additional remedies called for by nine other states and the District of Columbia that believe the settlement did not go far enough. Microsoft is likely to appeal if the judge comes down on it too harshly. But the states may appeal if the judge does not impose sanctions beyond the settlement. full article in the forum

Nov 1, 2002, 10:47 PM	#4
digitalwanderer Colour Commentator Join Date: May 2002 Location: Highland, IN USA Posts: 5,619 Rep Power: 0	DAMN IT! Damn all of you who voted for Bush to hell in a handbasket! You SEE what you get, do you SEE?!? Did anyone really think Ashcroft was going to allow this puppy to go any other way?!?! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!! (No offense intended to anyone, I'm just pissed that we came SO close to actually making M$ pay this time. ) __________________ WTF is up with the sigs?

Nov 2, 2002, 11:34 AM	#5
vk2amv DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 73 Rep Power: 0	Go Microsoft!!!! I think it is a great decision. I am not a real heavy MS pusher but I just think that what the remaining nine states wanted would have just caused no end of problems. I support this decision.

Nov 2, 2002, 12:04 PM	#6
Kelsenellenelvian Master of my own Destiny Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: EverDawn Kingdom,TruEarth Posts: 1,394 Rep Power: 0	Yes we win neeneer neeneer Imac SUCKS.... __________________ [color=#0000ff] Download Windows Post-Install Wizard v4.3.8 and WPI Lite v1.2 Here [/color][color=red][color=blue][/color][/color]

Nov 1, 2002, 04:00 PM	Thread Starter #2
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	Kollar-Kotelly is ruling, rather than calling for more negotiations, she's likely to approve the settlement, said Andy Gavil, a law professor at Howard University who has been following the case closely. In the past, judges who were inclined to reject such settlements first called for negotiations in hopes of improving them, he said. "In a sense, it suggests she's going to approve," he said. If she rejects the settlement, Microsoft is likely to appeal, perhaps in alliance with the Justice Department, he said. Microsoft and the Justice Department declined comment on the ruling and possible appeals. "Like everybody else involved in this case, we await the ruling from the District Court," Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said. Nor would the states comment on whether they would pursue the case further, although a spokeswoman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said he is "committed to arguing for tougher remedies in the interest of consumers." "We're waiting to see like everyone else what she orders," Lockyer spokeswoman Sandra Michioku said. Microsoft will probably face remedies over and above those in the settlement, said Ernest Gellhorn, a law professor at George Mason University. "My instinct is that the judge will uphold the DOJ-Microsoft settlement, yet also add some conditions in a separate decree at the request of the nonsigning states," he said. "But we'll find out if that is right or even close." The suit already has contributed to a decline in Microsoft's formerly stellar stock and forced the sometimes-brash company to acknowledge the harsh effects of its behavior and to become a self-avowed more "responsible" part of the technology industry. War and economic malaise are now a bigger concern of the federal government, but competitors and several states are still pressing for additional restrictions on the world's largest software company, including measures that Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has said may jeopardize his company's future. Microsoft said it already is abiding by most of the settlement. Among other things, the agreement requires the company to more equitably license its Windows operating system to computer makers, and bars it from retaliating against companies that sell PCs with competing software. Microsoft also has to share formerly secret software code enabling other programs to work well with Windows, so that it does not have an unfair advantage in developing new products. States including California, Utah and Iowa also want Microsoft to sell stripped-down versions of Windows without a built-in Internet browser and media player. They also want the company to share more of its software code, including its browser code, with competitors. A series of rulings has upheld the case against Microsoft, but the company has so far lessened the penalties through appeals. The last major ruling was a U.S. Court of Appeals decision in July 2001 finding Microsoft liable for illegally maintaining its monopoly on computer operating systems. That court declined to break the company in two, as U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered in 2000, but it directed Kollar-Kotelly to impose remedies that would restore competition to the software industry. It also found Microsoft liable for its anticompetitive behavior, a decision that has become the basis for private antitrust suits later filed by Netscape Communications and Sun Microsystems. After the economic downturn following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Kollar-Kotelly ordered Microsoft, the Justice Department and 18 states pursuing the case to reach a settlement. A year ago on Halloween, they reached a tentative deal, filed with the judge Nov. 2, but nine states said it was too lenient and argued additional remedies were necessary. The split among the states sent the case into uncharted waters. Kollar-Kotelly can approve or reject the settlement but not tinker with it directly. However, she can supplement it by selecting among the states' proposed remedies. Kollar-Kotelly's mandate from the Court of Appeals is clearer. It cited a Supreme Court case in which remedies were supposed to "unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct" and to "terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the future." Peter Dudley, Seattle Times

Nov 1, 2002, 10:31 PM	#3
kinetic DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Manchester England Posts: 2,559 Rep Power: 0	Judge OKs Microsoft Antitrust Settlement November 01, 2002 05:08 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday endorsed the antitrust settlement that Microsoft Corp. reached with the U.S. government and nine states a year ago, in a victory for the software giant that was cheered by investors. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rejected the alternative demands of nine other states saying they "present little, if any, legitimate justification for these remedies and in most instances these proposals are not supported by any economic analysis." There was no immediate word on whether the nine states, which had rejected the settlement as too weak to stop Microsoft's illegal behavior, would appeal Kollar-Kotelly's decision. Shares of Microsoft, which had been down ahead of word of the ruling, rose $1.74 to $54.74 in after hours trading. An appeals court ruling in June 2001 upheld trial court findings that Microsoft had illegally maintained its Windows operating system monopoly, but rejected breaking the company in two. The case was then transferred to Kollar-Kotelly to determine the appropriate remedies in the case. Microsoft reached the settlement with the Justice Department and nine states in November 2001 after Kollar-Kotelly urged the parties to reach an agreement. The settlement gives computer makers greater freedom to feature rival software on their machines by allowing them to hide some Microsoft icons on the Windows desktop. Microsoft is prohibited from retaliating under the settlement against those who choose non-Microsoft products. Nor could it enter into agreements that require the exclusive support of some Microsoft software. Under the settlement, Windows will be sold under a standard license to the major computer makers, although discounts would still be allowed according to the volume of the order. The nine states that declined to settle were California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia, plus the District of Columbia. These non-settling states had asked for greater disclosure of Microsoft's code to allow rival software to work better with Windows. They had also sought a version of Windows with removable add-on features to create opportunities for competing versions of features like Internet browsers and media players. Microsoft has long argued the restrictions sought by the states would benefit rivals like AOL Time Warner and Sun Microsystems Inc., and would deprive consumers of a reliable platform for software.