![]() |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Microsoft
Ruling To Come Late Today
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal judge overseeing the
Microsoft antitrust trial was ready to issue his verdict in the case
today, just days after settlement talks between the software company and
the government collapsed.
Microsoft officials confirmed today that U.S. District
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson would issue his ruling after financial
markets close.
The judge was expected to rule against Microsoft, based
on harsh assessments he outlined last November in his ``findings of
fact.'' In that document, Jackson found that Microsoft repeatedly engaged
in anti-competitive behavior by taking advantage of its monopoly power.
The charges were made in a lawsuit filed against the company by the
government and 19 states.
Jackson's ruling today was expected to specifically
spell out the violations of law against Microsoft. He would then begin
designing a remedy that could range from breaking up Microsoft to
restricting its conduct in the marketplace.
Sources familiar with the failed talks, speaking on
condition of anonymity said Sunday that negotiations in Chicago collapsed
after the company insisted on its own proposal to settle the lawsuit and
not because of disputes between state and federal plaintiffs.
Even before the states made new proposals Friday, ``It
was clear Microsoft was rejecting the government's proposal and insisting
on their own approach,'' one source said. ``That approach had a lot of
loopholes and would not have been effective.''
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates contended Saturday that
``it became impossible to settle because the Department of Justice and the
states were not working together. Between them, they appeared to be
demanding either a breakup of our company or other extreme concessions
...''
He did not provide details of the company's offer to
settle the case.
In an interview in today's Wall Street Journal, Gates
said that regardless of what Jackson rules his company will continue to
integrate the Internet into its Windows software, even though that linkage
is at the core of the Justice Department lawsuit.
``The ruling is just a step in the legal process. It
doesn't change any situation relative to what we do,'' he said.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal rejected
Gates' claim.
``The differences between the states and the Department
of Justice are minimal when compared to the divergence between our side
and Microsoft,'' he said.
Describing the negotiations as ``very complex,'' Iowa
Attorney General Thomas Miller said ``many factors'' led to the breakdown,
but ``the position of the states was not the cause of the failure.''
The talks were with a mediator, Chief Judge Richard A.
Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago. ``Just because mediation
didn't succeed doesn't mean that negotiations will cease. But that would
be direct negotiations,'' Miller said.
Microsoft officials - including Gates - negotiated with
government attorneys just days before the Justice Department filed its
original complaint in 1998. An agreement appeared likely until government
lawyers complained that Gates reconsidered details in an offer he made.
The deal fell through, and the government filed suit.
Last November, Jackson ruled that Microsoft was a
monopoly in the market for computer operating system software, and that
the company used its power to put the squeeze on competitors' products.
A person familiar with the government's case said
Microsoft submitted what became its final offer Friday, the same day the
states made their own proposal. By that time, it was already clear the
company was rejecting the government's offer, the source said.
The government's proposal included rules on what
products could be bundled with Microsoft's Windows software. Other rules
were designed to prevent Microsoft from retaliating against personal
computer manufacturers that used something other than Windows on their
products or supported competing technology.
The company proposal was described as having holes in
provisions regarding the information that would be available to developers
of competing software. Microsoft did not want to give competitors access
to the same software code information that its developers have, the source
said.
-
Associated Press reporters Michael J. Martinez in
Seattle and Michael J. Sniffen in Washington contributed to this story.
On the Net: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||