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: vinod Khurana who wrote (3817)	10/27/1997 11:01:00 AM
From: vinod Khurana	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

55 words at heart of Microsoft case By Dan Goodin October 27, 1997, 12:00 a.m. PT news analysis The dispute between the Justice Department and Microsoft over possible violation of a 1995 consent decree is likely to boil down to 55 words. In a court memorandum filed last week, the Justice Department accused Microsoft of violating the court settlement when the Redmond, Washington-based company allegedly required computer manufacturers to carry Internet Explorer as a condition for licensing the Windows 95 operating system on their PCs. Of the several pages that constitute the consent decree, however, only one paragraph appears to address the point of contention directly: "Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon: (1) the licensing of any other Covered Product, Operating System Software product or other product (provided, however, that this provision in and of itself shall not be construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing integrated products)." How exactly this passage will be interpreted is the subject of much debate among those involved in the case as well as those watching it. Depending on whose interpretation prevails, Microsoft's alleged deed is either in direct violation of these 55 words or expressly permitted by them. Legal experts generally agree that the case will hinge on whether Internet Explorer is considered one or two products (see related story). But antitrust attorneys differ sharply over which side has the better case. "Based on what we know today, I think [the government] should be able to make [a] showing" that the products are distinct," said Sam Miller, a former Justice Department lawyer who headed the original Microsoft investigation. Miller, now at Folger Levin & Kahn in San Francisco, added that the arguments laid out in the brief "are the traditional ways courts define what is a separate product, and looking at the evidence available, I would think that the government would be able to prove those points." But antitrust attorney Ian Feinberg says the government's case is anything but airtight. "As I understand the consent decree, it says [to Microsoft] you can't tie [two products] but you can integrate," said Feinberg, a lawyer at Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich in Palo Alto, California. "It doesn't really look at what happens if you are at the same time offering a product separately and integrating that product into a larger one." Added William Baxter, a law professor specializing in antitrust issues at Stanford University, the question "is purely metaphysical, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." In cases where the parties to an agreement disagree on its meaning, the judge first attempts to make an interpretation looking only "to the four corners of the document," Feinberg said. "If it doesn't obviously mean X or Y, then you have to look at the manifested intent of the parties, meaning what they communicated to each other." The Justice Department argues that Microsoft was strong-arming PC manufacturers into taking IE along with Windows. "Microsoft issued a formal notice that it intended to terminate the Windows 95 license agreement of one of the nation's largest OEMs [original equipment manufacturers], unless that OEM restored and thereafter continued to preinstall the Internet Explorer (and the Microsoft Network) icons," according to a government memorandum. Microsoft, for its part, insists that Explorer merely adds "functionality" to its Windows 95 operating system. Thus, it concludes, the browser and operating system are one--a technological "integration" that renders moot the government charge that one product was used to leverage the other. The government appears to have anticipated the argument. In its court document it goes on to offer a detailed argument that Internet Explorer is distinct, or in legal parlance, an "other product," from Windows 95. Those arguments include: That "substantial OEM and end-user demand exists" for browsers separate from demand for Windows 95. That Microsoft's actions--including its marketing and internal accounting procedures--demonstrate that it "recognizes and responds to the separate demand" for Explorer. That distributing the two products separately is "physically possible," "the commercial norm," and "not necessary to enable Microsoft to 'develop' any 'integrated product.'" But despite the strong focus on whether IE is one or two products, U.S. District Judge Thomas Jackson, the Washington jurist assigned to the case, is likely to consider a number of other factors in his decision, such as economic effect on consumers, antitrust attorney Ronald Katz said. "It's hard for me to believe that the judge is just going to look at the one product/two product question without looking at what was the purpose of the decree," said Katz, a lawyer at Coudert Brothers in San Francisco. "I think he's going to look under that and try to put some flesh on this analysis." Back to intro FREE newsletter sample Latest Headlines display on desktop The Net IE 4.0 goes retail Ending the "World Wide Wait" Web finance service for UK AOL Web services expand New charges in German link case FCC confirmations blocked Computing Compaq is big winner in PC shipments Intel plant delay may signal trouble U.S. worried about Japan computer purchases Digital servers due next week Intranets Roaming laptops protected Business Intel, Digital settle suit Jobs may decide on CEO post Microsoft under the gun 55 words at heart of Microsoft case BT may prevail in MCI bid Dorman takes over PointCast SportsLine to launch IPO SGI workers may face layoffs Cabletron faces class-action suit Miss a day? One Week View Back to Top Copyright c 1995-97 CNET, Inc. All rights rese