TTOSBT and other sane Softees:
Appeals Court Rejects Motion To Dismiss Microsoft Stay
(06/19/00, 1:18 p.m. ET) By Mary Mosquera, TechWeb News
Once again, a U.S. appeals court appears to have sided with Microsoft in its long-running antitrust battle.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the government's bid to deny Microsoft's request for a stay of its final ruling during the appeals process. This move strengthens Microsoft's battle for a more favorable venue.
The court denied the motion by the Justice Department and 17 states and further ordered that Microsoft (stock: MSFT) could submit an overlength motion of stay, allowing it to expand its arguments.
The appellate court also listed a schedule of briefs by both sides in Microsoft's bid to have the breakup and sweeping conduct restrictions stayed during the appeals process.
"Obviously, we are pleased that the appeals court unanimously sided with Microsoft and rejected the government's position," said Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan.
The government argued that Microsoft should have waited for U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson to rule on the stay motion.
"We believe this shows, once and for all, that Microsoft did not file its stay motion prematurely with the appeals court," Cullinan said.
The government has 10 days to file its response to Microsoft's motion to stay the final ruling, and Microsoft must reply by seven days later.
However, the appellate court said that if the trial court certifies the appeal to the Supreme Court, the briefing schedule is automatically suspended to await the Supreme Court's decision on whether or not it will directly hear the landmark antitrust case.
If the Supreme Court sends the case back, the schedule will continue.
The appellate court is mindful of the battle of lengthy briefs in the case and imposed a strict word limit.
"We caution the parties that all future filings must comply with the page and/or word limits established in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and this court's rules, except as specifically authorized by order of the court," the appeals court said. |
