Direct from Mr. Softee:
THE FREEDOM TO INNOVATE NETWORK NEWSLETTER
May 19, 2000
____________________________________________________________________
GOVERNMENT TRIES TO DEFEND ITS PROPOSED RADICAL REMEDIES
It?s unfortunate, but hardly shocking, that the Government is
attempting to defend its proposed radical remedies, which include
breaking up Microsoft.
In a brief filed with U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson
on Wednesday, the government and 17 of the 19 States suing Microsoft
characterized the Company?s proposed remedies as inadequate and
ineffectual. (Microsoft filed its proposed remedies in the case last
week. See below.)
In its Court papers, the Government continued to argue for a
dismantling of the Company. Microsoft firmly believes that there is no
basis for such an excessive action. Such a measure would only harm
consumers, the high-tech industry and the overall economy.
In addition to carving up the Company, the Government wants to force
Microsoft to disclose its intellectual property and trade secrets to
direct competitors like Sun Microsystems, Oracle, and IBM. Such a
mandate is the equivalent of telling Coca-Cola it has to share its
secret formula with Pepsi, as well as every other cola company in
existence.
The Government's proposals also would force Microsoft to allow computer
manufacturers to add to and delete from Microsoft's copyrighted Windows
product, and still market the modified end-result as "Windows." That's
like allowing all of Coke's distributors to alter Coke in any way they
want, but still permitting them to call it Coke. This will, in no way,
benefit consumers; it will only create confusion and rob Microsoft of
its highly valuable intellectual property.
___________________________________________________________________
MICROSOFT ASKED COURT TO REJECT BREAKUP
In response to a Court Order entered on April 28, 2000, by U.S.
District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, Microsoft filed with the
Court a series of documents last week. These papers consisted of:
* Microsoft?s response and objections to the Government and the
17 states' Proposed Final Judgment, which was filed with the
Court on Friday, April 28, 2000;
* Microsoft's Proposed Final Judgment and a supporting brief;
* Microsoft?s suggested timetable for conducting additional
proceedings that may be needed in order to provide the Court
with proper evidence to make a final judgment; and
* Microsoft's motion and supporting brief, asking the Court to
reject the Government?s break-up proposal.
Microsoft's Response to the Government?s Proposed Final Judgment
In its "summary" response to the Government?s remedies? proposal,
Microsoft argued that the relief put forth by the Government would
bring very substantial harm to Microsoft, third-party software
developers, and consumers.
Microsoft's Proposed Final Judgment
Although Microsoft respectfully disagrees with the bulk of the Court's
Findings of Fact and its Conclusions of Law, Microsoft was asked by the
Court to submit its own "counter-proposal" for relief. Unlike the
Government?s proposal, however, which was deemed by numerous
commentators to be "radical," "extreme" and "punitive," Microsoft?s
suggestions were fully responsive to the violations found by the Court.
Microsoft's Suggested Timetable for Additional Proceedings
The Court has not set a schedule for the remedies phase of the case.
In view of the panoply of remedies sought by the Government, Microsoft
requested that if the Court wishes to consider that full range of
relief, further proceedings should take place to develop a reliable
evidentiary record. The Company proposed several reasonable
alternatives for the Court?s consideration, including an immediate
solution to end the need for further remedies? proceedings and speed
the process to appeal.
Microsoft's Motion for Summary Rejection of the Government?s Proposal
to Break Up the Company
In its Proposed Final Judgment, the Government suggested breaking
Microsoft into two separate companies: an operating systems business
and an applications business. Microsoft is confident that any attempt
to impose such a radical and extreme form of relief will be overturned
on appeal. Thus, Microsoft suggested that Judge Jackson immediately
dismiss the Government?s proposed breakup, and instead adopt its
Proposed Final Judgment, which is thoroughly responsive to the
violations found by the Court.
Next Steps in the Case
Next Wednesday, May 24, 2000, Judge Jackson will hold a hearing in
Washington, D.C., on the remedies phase in U.S. v. Microsoft.
Your Comments
I?m outraged that the government is trying to step in and control both
the marketing and the creativity of a company that has been the
forerunner in developing new industries, new jobs, new ideas. K.L.
I have almost 20 years of experience in the development of business
software and feel strongly that Microsoft has contributed greatly to
our current high tech economy. Their products and support has allowed
thousands of small companies to participate with confidence in this
market. G.C.
I am CEO of a small, public software company. I see Microsoft as the
embodiment of the very best business principles: vision, innovation,
focus, commitment, and competitive will. I see very little in
government that I can rationally associate with any of these
attributes. N.O. |
