Two states proceed with appeal in Microsoft antitrust case

Zardon · Jan 9, 2003, 05:49 PM

WASHINGTON — Lawyers representing Massachusetts and West Virginia, the last holdouts in the landmark Microsoft antitrust case, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia yesterday to hear oral arguments no later than June 2.
The request came in a filing in the two states' appeal of a U.S. District Court ruling in November that handed the company what's widely acknowledged to be a legal victory. The filing outlined what the states consider to be the major issues in the appeal.

On Nov. 1, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly approved, with minor adjustments, a settlement crafted by the Justice Department and Microsoft a year earlier.

Massachusetts and West Virginia, part of a group of nine states that had tried to obtain more stringent sanctions against Microsoft, separately appealed the settlement, saying it was too weak to address the company's illegal conduct.

"The central argument in this appeal is that an adequate remedy has not been secured, and thus the appropriate resolution of this seminal case is in jeopardy," the two states said in their filing.

In the deal approved by Kollar-Kotelly, Microsoft agreed to measures that include giving computer makers greater freedom to feature rival software on their machines by allowing them to hide some Microsoft icons on the Windows desktop.

An appeals court ruled in June 2001 that Microsoft had illegally maintained its Windows-operating-system monopoly, but rejected a trial court proposal to break the company in two.

The U.S. Department of Justice originally filed the antitrust case against Microsoft in 1998.

In yesterday's filing, the states question whether Kollar-Kotelly failed to impose an adequate punishment against Microsoft, and whether she erred when she approved a remedy that "does not deny Microsoft the fruits of its unlawful conduct."

The two states also questioned whether the judge fully appreciated "Microsoft's ability to circumvent narrow remedial measures."

According to the states, "undue delay in this case will cause irreparable injury to consumers and competition."

Yesterday's motion also asked that the case be heard by the entire Court of Appeals, and that the court allow 100 pages of briefs instead of the usual limit of 30 pages.

Microsoft did not comment on the motion.

"Through the process of court filings, we will address the issues West Virginia and Massachusetts raise," said spokesman Jon Murchinson.

In December, two computer-industry trade groups said they wanted to protest the antitrust settlement with Microsoft.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association and the Software and Information Industry Association filed motions with the U.S. District Court asking for permission to appeal. Microsoft and the Justice Department are contesting the request. Alex Fryer
Seattle Times staff reporter

Jan 9, 2003, 05:49 PM	#1
Zardon DriverHeaven Founder Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 32,480 Rep Power: 179	Two states proceed with appeal in Microsoft antitrust case WASHINGTON — Lawyers representing Massachusetts and West Virginia, the last holdouts in the landmark Microsoft antitrust case, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia yesterday to hear oral arguments no later than June 2. The request came in a filing in the two states' appeal of a U.S. District Court ruling in November that handed the company what's widely acknowledged to be a legal victory. The filing outlined what the states consider to be the major issues in the appeal. On Nov. 1, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly approved, with minor adjustments, a settlement crafted by the Justice Department and Microsoft a year earlier. Massachusetts and West Virginia, part of a group of nine states that had tried to obtain more stringent sanctions against Microsoft, separately appealed the settlement, saying it was too weak to address the company's illegal conduct. "The central argument in this appeal is that an adequate remedy has not been secured, and thus the appropriate resolution of this seminal case is in jeopardy," the two states said in their filing. In the deal approved by Kollar-Kotelly, Microsoft agreed to measures that include giving computer makers greater freedom to feature rival software on their machines by allowing them to hide some Microsoft icons on the Windows desktop. An appeals court ruled in June 2001 that Microsoft had illegally maintained its Windows-operating-system monopoly, but rejected a trial court proposal to break the company in two. The U.S. Department of Justice originally filed the antitrust case against Microsoft in 1998. In yesterday's filing, the states question whether Kollar-Kotelly failed to impose an adequate punishment against Microsoft, and whether she erred when she approved a remedy that "does not deny Microsoft the fruits of its unlawful conduct." The two states also questioned whether the judge fully appreciated "Microsoft's ability to circumvent narrow remedial measures." According to the states, "undue delay in this case will cause irreparable injury to consumers and competition." Yesterday's motion also asked that the case be heard by the entire Court of Appeals, and that the court allow 100 pages of briefs instead of the usual limit of 30 pages. Microsoft did not comment on the motion. "Through the process of court filings, we will address the issues West Virginia and Massachusetts raise," said spokesman Jon Murchinson. In December, two computer-industry trade groups said they wanted to protest the antitrust settlement with Microsoft. The Computer & Communications Industry Association and the Software and Information Industry Association filed motions with the U.S. District Court asking for permission to appeal. Microsoft and the Justice Department are contesting the request. Alex Fryer Seattle Times staff reporter