![]() |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
U.S.
Could Seek Restrictions This Year on Microsoft
By David Lawsky
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The government could seek
restrictions on Microsoft Corp. (NasdaqNM:MSFT
- news) that take effect
this year, long before the landmark antitrust case works its way through
higher courts, experts said Tuesday.
District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled Monday that
Microsoft committed serious violations of the nation's antitrust laws,
opening the way for consideration of penalties in the final phase of the
trial that may end in October.
But because the appeals process could stretch the case
until 2002 or beyond, some experts think the government should seek
interim restrictions as a way to restrict Microsoft sooner.
A Justice Department spokeswoman had no comment.
``I do expect for the government to ask for some
intermediate relief,'' said Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor at the
University of Iowa college of law who has co-written an important treatise
on antitrust law and consulted for the government on the case. Hovenkamp
said he has not, however, talked to the government about the possibility.
Jackson has ruled Microsoft used its monopoly power in
personal computer operating systems to illegally intimidate other firms
and preserve that monopoly.
The Justice Department and 19 states which brought the
case could ultimately ask for remedies ranging from restrictions on
Microsoft's conduct to splitting it into several smaller firms.
But obtaining a tough remedy that would permanently
alter Microsoft could take years, so the government would have to seek
some lesser change if it wanted quick relief.
Intermediate relief ``is certainly something the Justice
Department ought to think about proposing, but because the appeal will not
have been heard, appellate courts may be hesitant to approve the granting
of such relief,'' said Harvey Goldschmid, a professor of law at Columbia
Law School.
At a minimum, Goldschmid said, the seeking of
intermediate relief may have the salutary effect of resulting in an
expedited appeal.
``I think that would be very healthy,'' Goldschmid said.
Soon after Judge Jackson announced his ruling Monday,
Microsoft said it would seek an expedited appeal of the ruling at the
conclusion of the trial's next phase.
Any appeal by the company or request for intermediate
measures from the government would have to wait until the Judge issues
remedies, expected by October.
Several lawyers who read Jackson's decision said it
appeared to have been written carefully, with an eye on higher courts.
``The decision for the most part followed established
(legal) precedent and so the issue on appeal is more likely to be factual
issues,'' said Mark Schechter, an antitrust lawyer with Howrey &
Simon.
Attacking Jackson's findings of fact, which were issued
months before his conclusions of law, will be tough, Schechter said.
Microsoft will have to show that Jackson was ``clearly erroneous.''
But Joseph Sims, an antitrust lawyer with Jones, Day
said that there were relatively few cases under the portion of antitrust
law used against Microsoft, so that the company would easily be able to
find precedents that support its views.
``This is an area where there's something for everybody
out there in the case law,'' he said.
Steven Newborn of Clifford Chance said that if Microsoft
is able to win at the U.S. Court of Appeals level, and Texas Gov. George
Bush, a Republican, is elected president, the firm might be able to reach
a favorable settlement.
Otherwise, the Justice Department could appeal a losing
appeals court decision to the Supreme Court.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||