Microsoft Asks Judge To Drop Suit nytimes.com
As expected, of course. Not much news here, but a
Microsoft also argued that evidence it uncovered from rivals during its trial preparations prove that its actions did not prevent that rival, Netscape Communications, from making its own Internet browser widely available. For example, Netscape announced plans this year to distribute more than 100 million copies of its browser.
Was that the question? There seems to be some confusion between the dead consent decree, now held to be completely meaningless, and the current matter.
''Is it competition if you get absolutely no revenue for your product?'' Roberta Katz, Netscape's general counsel, said in an interview. ''What do you do if you get no money? How long do you stay in business? That was their whole goal, to cut off Netscape's air supply.''
Well, that's what Paul Maritz said, but he's a "relatively junior executive". Bill said so, and he wouldn't lie, would he? Maybe Maritz is designated hit man, since he did that conveniently timed affidavit against Glaser too, all ready to role out even before Glaser started talking. I confess, the economics all seem pretty postmodern to me.
Meanwhile, from zdnn
Microsoft seeks dismissal of government's suit zdnet.com
Rich Gray, an antitrust attorney with San Jose, Calif.-based Bergeson, Eliopoulous, Grady & Gray, said Microsoft's motion for summary judgement has little chance of succeeding because such motions are only granted if there are no disputed facts. Gray says the case contains plenty of disputed facts. "This case is going to trial in September," Gray predicted.
He also said Microsoft could be on shaky legal ground by repeatedly citing the Appeals Court decision because that ruling only dealt with whether the company broke a 1995 consent decree, not whether it widely violated antitrust laws. "All of this language that Micorosft is wrapping itself in actually isn't of any legal significance," he said. "A large part of what Microsoft is doing here is a PR offensive."
That's what I thought. What ever happened to "the simple contratual matter" that the consent decree was dismissed as at the time. Anyway a PR offensive is what most of the antitrust talk has been all along. "Chrysler car radio" / "We must be free to imitate / intimidate / integrate / innovate" never seemed to have much legal point, but that's just the naive high school civics point of view. Also in this story, the clock gets roled back some more. Now Bill was on top of the internet since 1992, think we'll make it back to 1978 eventually?
For example, and as expected, Microsoft said it thought of using Internet browsing technologies with Windows as early as 1992, and that public statements about its plans were made in April 1994.
The anti-Microsoft lobbying group Procomp called that argument "fiction," saying that Microsoft itself acknowledged it didn't respond to the Internet until 1996. Executive director Mike Pettit cited the back cover of Bill Gates' book, The Road Ahead, which said that Microsoft "astonished the business community in 1996 by abruptly reinventing his entire company around the Internet."
The Mind of Reg(TM) says, "That's out of context! That was a different PR offensive!
Cheers, Dan. |
