Judge Jackson is back in the hot seat.
--Mike Buckley
===========================
Court ruling due in Microsoft case after talks fail
By David Lawsky
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The focus in Microsoft Corp.'s landmark antitrust case has returned to a Washington court where a ruling is expected this week after a Chicago judge's efforts to mediate a settlement ended in failure Saturday.
``I regret to announce the end of my efforts to mediate the Microsoft antitrust case,' U.S. Court of Appeals Chief Judge Richard Posner of Chicago said in a statement.
Posner said his four months of efforts ``proved fruitless' because differences between the two sides ``were too deep-seated to be bridged.'
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates praised Posner's professionalism and expressed disappointment at the collapse of the mediation, which he blamed squarely on the government, which ``would not agree to a fair and reasonable settlement.'
The Redmond, Washington-based company's chief executive, Steve Balmer, said he believed the software giant still had a strong case and remained confident it would prevail in court.
Justice Department antitrust chief Joel Klein also thanked Posner and said any remedy must address ``competitive problems presented by Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position.'
District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who is hearing the case in Washington, D.C., will now issue his conclusions of law in the case. Jackson had delayed the release of his decision at the request of Posner, in a last-ditch attempt to reach a settlement.
Jackson found last year that Microsoft abused monopoly power over its Windows operating system, damaging consumers, competitors and other firms.
He is widely expected to find that Microsoft violated the nation's antitrust laws. After that, he will decide what remedies should be applied in the case.
Microsoft has said it respectfully disagrees with Jackson's findings of fact.
Klein said that if Jackson finds the company violated the law, ``we will seek a remedy that prevents Microsoft from using its monopoly in the future to stifle competition, hamper innovation and limit consumer choice.'
Gates said the talks ultimately broke down 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 that go far beyond the issues raised in the lawsuit,' he told reporters in a conference call.
But a lawyer close to the case described Gates' comments as 'nonsense.' The lawyer told Reuters that ``Microsoft flatly rejected the Justice Department's proposal and insisted on its own approach, which was filled with loopholes and trapdoors.'
Klein said that although the government preferred a settlement, a ``settlement for settlement's sake would be pointless,' and that the government ``could only agree to a remedy that effectively solves the competitive problems detailed in the court's findings of fact.'
Posner in his one-page statement mentioned nothing about the 19 states that are also parties to the suit.
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the two sides had sought common ground ``in good faith.' But he said they were ``now ready to return to the court with the same determination as ever.'
The government made a deal with Microsoft in 1995 and, in its view, Microsoft used a loophole in that agreement to meld its Windows operating system with its Internet Web browser.
Later, that bundling or integration became one of the key allegations in the antitrust suit against Microsoft. The government said Microsoft competed unfairly against Netscape, which later lost market share to Microsoft.
Ultimately, the Netscape share price dropped and the company sold out to America Online. |
