[Am-info] Microsoft Back in Court to Defend Antitrust Pact

Tue, 04 Nov 2003 18:58:24 -0500

--------------096CBF8559659B945F6CB06D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Erick Andrews wrote:

> Unless by some remote fortune, I won't hold a candle to it.
>
> This is probably the last challenge to The Evil Empire for
> the foreseeable future.  Hey, we all tried.

No.  I think the fact that the Appeals Court is willing to hear (re-hear) the
case is more than a little significant.

John

>
>
> -- Erick
>
> http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=3744221
> =====================================================
> Mon November 3, 2003 11:57 AM ET (Page 1 of 2) WASHINGTON
> (Reuters) - Attorneys for Microsoft Corp.  head back to federal
> court on Tuesday to defend a landmark antitrust settlement from
> a last-ditch challenge from Massachusetts' attorney general and
> other critics.
>
> The two sides will square off before a panel of judges in the
> U.S.  Court of Appeals for the D.C.  Circuit, with critics of
> the settlement arguing it should be overturned and stricter
> sanctions imposed on the world's largest software maker.
>
> "It (the settlement) fails to stop Microsoft's illegal conduct
> and does nothing to restore competition to the monopolized
> market or to prevent Microsoft from engaging in similar means to
> the same unlawful end," Massachusetts AG Thomas Reilly said in a
> brief filed over the summer.
>
> Microsoft will likely counter that the dissenters are extremists
> out of step with the courts, the Justice Department and 20 other
> states, all of whom have endorsed the settlement.
>
> "Only Massachusetts continues to pursue different relief that
> would benefit certain of Microsoft's competitors, but not
> consumers," Microsoft said in a reply brief.
>
> Microsoft argued successfully during last year's remedy hearings
> that more stringent sanctions would benefit only rivals like
> Oracle Corp.  and Sun Microsystems, while hurting consumers.
>
> In a separate argument before the same appeals judges, another
> group of dissenters led by two industry trade groups will argue
> the settlement is not in the public interest, as required by
> U.S.  antitrust laws.
>
> The main legal question will be whether the lower court judge,
> U.S.  District Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly, properly interpreted
> a 2001 ruling by the appeals court, which outlined how to design
> a remedy to address Microsoft's antitrust violations.
>
> George Mason University law professor Ernest Gellhorn said
> Kollar-Kotelly will likely get a lot of deference from the
> appeals judges, having presided over long hearings and having
> written a 500-page opinion on the case.
>
> "It's not whether she reached the right decision, but whether
> her decision on remedies was reasonable," he said.
>
> The appeals court transferred the case to Kollar-Kotelly in June
> 2001 after ruling that Microsoft had illegally maintained its
> Windows operating system monopoly, but rejected a proposal to
> break the company in two.
>
> In November of 2001, Microsoft and the Justice Department agreed
> to settle the case.  The company agreed to restrictions that
> would, among other things, give computer makers greater freedom
> to feature rival software on their machines by allowing them to
> hide some Microsoft icons on the Windows desktop.  Continued ...
> =====================================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info

--------------096CBF8559659B945F6CB06D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
Erick Andrews wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Unless by some remote fortune, I won't hold a candle
to it.
This is probably the last challenge to The Evil Empire for
 the foreseeable future.&nbsp; Hey, we all tried.</blockquote>

No.&nbsp; I think the fact that the Appeals Court is willing to
hear (re-hear) the case is more than a little significant.
John
 &nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
-- Erick
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=3744221">http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&amp;storyID=3744221</a>
 =====================================================
 Mon November 3, 2003 11:57 AM ET (Page 1 of 2) WASHINGTON
 (Reuters) - Attorneys for Microsoft Corp.&nbsp; head back to federal
 court on Tuesday to defend a landmark antitrust settlement from
 a last-ditch challenge from Massachusetts' attorney general and
 other critics.
The two sides will square off before a panel of judges in the
 U.S.&nbsp; Court of Appeals for the D.C.&nbsp; Circuit, with critics
of
 the settlement arguing it should be overturned and stricter
 sanctions imposed on the world's largest software maker.
"It (the settlement) fails to stop Microsoft's illegal conduct
 and does nothing to restore competition to the monopolized
 market or to prevent Microsoft from engaging in similar means to
 the same unlawful end," Massachusetts AG Thomas Reilly said in a
 brief filed over the summer.
Microsoft will likely counter that the dissenters are extremists
 out of step with the courts, the Justice Department and 20 other
 states, all of whom have endorsed the settlement.
"Only Massachusetts continues to pursue different relief that
 would benefit certain of Microsoft's competitors, but not
 consumers," Microsoft said in a reply brief.
Microsoft argued successfully during last year's remedy hearings
 that more stringent sanctions would benefit only rivals like
 Oracle Corp.&nbsp; and Sun Microsystems, while hurting consumers.
In a separate argument before the same appeals judges, another
 group of dissenters led by two industry trade groups will argue
 the settlement is not in the public interest, as required by
 U.S.&nbsp; antitrust laws.
The main legal question will be whether the lower court judge,
 U.S.&nbsp; District Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly, properly interpreted
 a 2001 ruling by the appeals court, which outlined how to design
 a remedy to address Microsoft's antitrust violations.
George Mason University law professor Ernest Gellhorn said
 Kollar-Kotelly will likely get a lot of deference from the
 appeals judges, having presided over long hearings and having
 written a 500-page opinion on the case.
"It's not whether she reached the right decision, but whether
 her decision on remedies was reasonable," he said.
The appeals court transferred the case to Kollar-Kotelly in June
 2001 after ruling that Microsoft had illegally maintained its
 Windows operating system monopoly, but rejected a proposal to
 break the company in two.
In November of 2001, Microsoft and the Justice Department agreed
 to settle the case.&nbsp; The company agreed to restrictions that
 would, among other things, give computer makers greater freedom
 to feature rival software on their machines by allowing them to
 hide some Microsoft icons on the Windows desktop.&nbsp; Continued ...
 =====================================================
_______________________________________________
 Am-info mailing list
 Am-info@lists.essential.org
 <a href="http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info">http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info</a></blockquote>
</html>

--------------096CBF8559659B945F6CB06D--