Connecticut jury rules for Microsoft
Federal jury finds software giant did not violate antitrust laws in case brought by Bristol Technology
MSNBC News Services
BRIDGEPORT, Conn., July 16 — A jury Friday found that Microsoft Corp. did not violate antitrust laws in its dealing with a small Danbury software company. The U.S. District Court jury did find, however, that Microsoft had committed deceptive practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, but awarded Bristol Technology Inc. just $1 in that claim.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW
ADVERTISING ON MSNBC ON MSN
E-Mail:
Zip:
"WE'RE VERY PLEASED and grateful to the jury," Microsoft senior attorney Steven Aeschbacher told CNBC shortly after the decision was announced. "The fact that they found that we didn't violate any antitrust laws — state or federal — is a very important finding. Bristol filed the suit right here in their backyard and a unanimous jury came back and said Microsoft didn't violate any antitrust laws — we're very pleased by that finding," he said.
(Microsoft is a partner in MSNBC.)
Asked whether the verdict will help Microsoft in its federal antitrust case, Aeschbacher said, "The cases are completely separate, but we feel like the evidence that this jury saw and decided on showed that there's a lot of competition, that Microsoft has been acting in a pro-competitive way and that we've been helping consumers. We're proud of that," he told CNBC.
John Altieri, a lawyer for Bristol, said, "We're extremely disappointed and surprised, and will be exploring all of our options."
The eight-member jury returned its verdict on the third day of deliberations.
Danbury-based Bristol sued Microsoft last year, contending the maker of Windows had stifled competition by preventing access to source code — software blueprints — of Windows NT, a top program for running computer networks.
Bristol makes a software product called Wind/U, which allows programs written specifically for Windows to be converted to run on computers with different operating systems such as UNIX.
Bristol contended that Microsoft illegally prevented Bristol from obtaining current and future Windows NT source code, in effect severing the company's customers from the latest Windows technology.
From 1994 to 1997, the two companies had a contract under which Microsoft provided access to source code for an earlier version of Windows NT. Bristol filed its lawsuit after they were unable to reach an agreement on a contract for the newest versions.
During the six-week trial in U.S. District Court, Bristol's lawyers said Microsoft had deceived the company when it made public and private statements about its commitment to providing source code and later reneged on those promises. The company said it had 200 customers who relied on them to obtain source code for current and future versions of Windows NT.
But Microsoft's lawyers argued that the smaller company's lawsuit was motivated by greed.
They repeatedly told the jury that while Microsoft executives continued to try to negotiate a new contract with Bristol, the smaller company's executives were contacting lawyers, a public relations firm and an economic damages expert to prepare their lawsuit against Microsoft.
The lawsuit pitted Bristol, a little-known company with 70 employees and $8.7 million in revenues, against the Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft, the industry leader with 26,000 employees and $14.48 billion in revenues.
Bristol made two antitrust claims, first, that Microsoft refused to negotiate a new contract. Secondly, Bristol asserted that Microsoft illegally leveraged its monopoly power in personal computer operating systems to monopolize markets for operating systems for computer servers and technical workstations.
Bristol failed to prove that because of Microsoft's actions there is a dangerous probability that it will acquire monopoly power in those markets.
Bristol's lawyers did not ask the jury to award a specific amount of money, but in closing arguments suggested a range of $130 million to $263 million. That range was given by an economic damages expert testifying for Bristol who said the company would lose that amount in profits from 1996 to 2006 because it lost the latest Windows source code for more than two years.
Microsoft is facing a much larger antitrust case in Washington, D.C., brought by the Justice Department and 19 states. The government contends that Microsoft illegally wielded monopoly power from its dominant Windows product to expand into new markets, such as Internet software, and thus crush competitors.
Caldera Inc. of Orem, Utah, also has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. That case is scheduled to go to trial in January.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
