Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (35134)	12/6/1999 9:35:00 PM
From: Captain Jack	Respond to of 74651

WASHINGTON, Dec 6 (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. <MSFT.O> violated antitrust law in at least four different ways, the Justice Department and 19 states argued in papers filed on Monday with the judge conducting the software company's trial. Government lawyers -- building on Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's tough findings last month that Microsoft used monopoly power to harm consumers, competitors and other companies -- argued that the software firm violated key sections of antitrust law. "The findings of fact issued by the court on Nov. 5, 1999, establish that Microsoft violated the Sherman Act in at least four ways," the filing said. The government said Microsoft illegally erected barriers to competitors, tied the purchase of its dominant personal computer operating system to acceptance of its other software, entered exclusionary agreements and campaigned to keep a rival Web browser from consumers. The 70-page submission is the first of a series of back-and-forth filings by the government and Microsoft that will help Judge Jackson decide in February or March whether the company violated antitrust law. "We disagree with the government's arguments," Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray said. "We don't believe they accurately reflect the law. And we look forward to presenting our detailed legal analysis to the court as this process continues." Microsoft is set to file a submission by Jan. 17, a further government reply is due on Jan. 24 and then one by Microsoft by Jan. 31. Jackson has set oral arguments for Feb. 22. On the same day that the government made its filing, the Justice Department, the states and Microsoft met privately in Chicago with a mediator acting at the request of Judge Jackson. Sources confirmed it took place but declined further comment. If mediation fails, all sides predict Jackson's decision and any remedies he applies will be appealed to higher courts. The Justice Department, looking ahead to arguments it may have to make before the Supreme Court, urged Jackson to ignore a 1998 appellate court decision. In an earlier legal skirmish with Microsoft, the government had persuaded Jackson that one technique Microsoft used to help preserve its monopoly power was to illegally tie the distribution of its Internet Explorer browser to the Windows operating system. The tying was designed to help it displace rival Netscape Navigator as the dominant Web browser to peruse the Internet, the government said. Microsoft argued it was innovating -- not tying -- by integrating its browser and operating system. The appellate court agreed, but the government said the appeals court was wrong and urged Jackson to decide based on the Supreme Court's "focus" in prior antitrust rulings. "The Supreme Court has not carved out an exception for some category of 'product design' or 'technological' tying cases," the Justice Department said. The government said Microsoft acted against Netscape because it feared software might be able to run on Netscape's browser, perhaps undermining its monopoly. The Supreme Court has held that Section 2 of the Sherman antitrust act makes it illegal for a company with monopoly power to commit the "willful acquisition or maintenance of that power," instead of holding on to a monopoly by having a superior product, business acumen or luck. In another argument, the government said Microsoft made agreements to "choke off meaningful access" by consumers to Netscape's Internet browser. The government said Microsoft used its monopoly power to help exclude Netscape through deals with Internet access providers, on-line service providers and others. The Supreme Court has held that Section 1 of the Sherman Act bars agreements that are an "unreasonable restraint of competition." In an additional filing, the 19 states and the District of Columbia also alleged that Microsoft violated state laws in each of their jurisdictions.