Update: States ask for five-year extension of Microsoft judgment
124986
A group of states asked a federal judge to extend much of the 2002 antitrust judgment against Microsoft, saying the middleware market is still monopolized.
233277
WASHINGTON--A federal appeals court on Thursday wrestled with whether to overturn or uphold a lower court&#39;s $565 million judgment against Microsoft in the biggest patent dispute in Web history.
717359
With a little kick to Netscape's corpse Microsoft is pshawing claims that it needs another five years of legal babysitting.â¦
195939
As expected, the top prosecutors in six states and the District of Columbia asked the judge overseeing the software maker's antitrust case to extend the consent decree until 2012.
153350
Compliance hold up The US Department of Justice told a federal judge it is unhappy with Microsoft's plans to extend a deadline for supplying technical information to licensees documenting how Windows communicates with operating systems and middleware made by other companies.â¦
558835
Google Inc.  asked a federal  judge on Monday to extend the consent decree that settled the  landmark antitrust case against Microsoft Corp.  in  order to address competition concerns involving the Windows  Vista operating system.
287219
Deadline extended while the software maker waits for a ruling in Justice Department's antitrust case.
132625
(InfoWorld) - As judgment day in the nine-year-long antitrust battle between Microsoft and the European Commission draws near, neither side in the protracted dispute knows for sure how it will react to the news on the day. Although the date of the ruling by the European Court of First Instance has been public since July, the European commissioner in charge of competition, Neelie Kroes, still hasn't decided whether she will hold a press conference on Monday. Meanwhile, Tom Brookes, a Microsoft spokesman, said the company is waiting until Monday morning before finalizing plans for addressing the rank's journalists from around the world gathering in Luxembourg, the court's location, and Brussels and who are eager to place "winner" and "loser" tags on the adversaries. "How much can you prepare for an outcome you don't know?" Brookes said. "Clearly Mrs. Kroes isn't going to give a press conference if the Commission loses outright," said Commission spokesman Jonathan Todd. Microsoft's appeal against the Commission's 2004 antitrust ruling is the biggest event in the working lives of everyone directly involved. They know that Monday's outcome will influence the software industry's future and will be a reference in all future European antitrust cases, especially ones in the fast-changing world of IT. From Microsoft's perspective, it will determine "under what circumstances market-leading companies can improve their products for consumers," said Erich Andersen, vice president and associate general counsel for Microsoft in Europe, in a statement. "The issue here is whether Microsoft should be able to regulate the market from a superdominant position, or whether the market should determine which products should gain access to consumers," countered Todd in a telephone interview. Both sides also know that how the outcome is perceived in the press is almost as important as the actual outcome, which is likely to be hundreds of pages in length, devilishly nuanced, and highly complex. Most people expect several versions of the court ruling to appear in the media on Monday. Initial reports will emerge shortly after the ruling is made public at 9:30 a.m. local time, and will probably focus on whether the Commission has to repay any or all of the â¬497 million ($685 million) fine it imposed on Microsoft in 2004. Repaying the fine will be seen as evidence that Microsoft's appeal against the 2004 Commission ruling was successful. Letting the fine stand will be viewed as a Microsoft loss. But what happens to the fine is the least important aspect of Monday's ruling, according to Thomas Vinje, a partner in the law firm Clifford Chance, who heads the legal team of the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), a Commission ally. "It's the least relevant yardstick," Vinje said. "Far more important is how the judges assess individual facts and points of law because this will determine what legal precedents can be gleaned from this case." A senior lawyer on Microsoft's side agreed. "If the court reduces the fine on Microsoft, saying that the anticompetitive behavior isn't so serious, but upholds the Commission's broad argument, then a lawyer in a year's time dealing with a different antitrust case will be more interested in what the court specifically said than in whether the fine was reduced or not," he said, asking not to be named. Journalists will largely be dependent on lawyers' interpretations of the document, which won't come out until some time after the initial ruling. The story may well change dramatically during the day, once details of the ruling emerge, possibly even reversing a superficial initial assessment of who won or lost. The finest legal minds involved on both sides will pore over the document looking for ways to claim victory and to shape perceptions of the ruling. Microsoft appealed both strands in the Commission's landmark 2004 ruling, which concluded that Microsoft was abusing the dominant position of its Windows operating system in order to muscle in on other sectors of the software market. The Commission concluded that Microsoft was competing unfairly against other vendors by bundling its Media Player multimedia software in Windows. The Commission also ruled that Microsoft monopolized the market for low-end server operating systems by failing to reveal interoperability information to rivals. Last April the court held a three-day hearing during which the Commission and Microsoft, together with their software industry allies, tried to convince the judges of their arguments. Observers foresee four possible outcomes on Monday, the first two clear-cut but unlikely, the other two mixed and therefore more probable. The court could side with the Commission on both sides of the case. It might deem Microsoft an obstacle to innovation in the software industry and order the immediate breakup of the company, effectively appropriating the Windows operating system and making it a public utility. In the second clear-cut scenario, the court sides with Microsoft on both counts and declares that the rapidly changing IT industry is defined by a string of monopolies and that one monopoly is inevitably overtaken by another in time. More likely, the court may side with the Commission on the interoperability side but uphold Microsoft's appeal against the bundling ruling. Microsoft may be ordered to release all interoperability information to rivals immediately. This result would open up Office-related markets to open source software rivals. However, Microsoft would no longer need to sell a version of Windows without Media Player, and it would most probably bundle more and more features onto Windows in the future, to the likely detriment of any halfway successful innovation from a rival, such as Google. Alternatively, Microsoft may lose the bundling argument but win on the interoperability side. The Court may order Microsoft to set up a separate company to sell a completely unbundled version of Windows. This entity would be free to compete with the fully bundled version and strike partnerships with other software developers. If the third scenario prevails, then Microsoft could face a string of lawsuits in Europe. The Commission is already examining an ECIS complaint that claims Microsoft has stifled competition in the market for office tools software by failing to allow rival software from interoperating properly with Microsoft Office. "Victory on the interoperability side of the case on Monday would put wind in our sails," said the ECIS's Vinje. But a loss would put a swift end to a new attack, and any others that might lie in waiting for Monday's outcome. "Monday's ruling will have a huge effect on how the ECIS complaint is dealt with," Todd said.
713715
States pressing for continued scrutiny of Microsoft Corp.'s business practices failed to support their argument with evidence, the software maker said in a court filing Friday.
372190
Grotius writes &quot;As reported in CNET, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the court that hears patent appeals) heard oral argument in an appeal from a $565 million award against Microsoft for infringing patent rights held by the
132187
Luxembourg - Microsoft Corp&#39;s five-year legal battle in Europe moved into a public courtroom for the first time on Thursday as the software giant tries to get the European Union&#39;s landmark antitrust ruling against it lifted.
364704
(InfoWorld) - Plaintiffs in the U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft disagreed sharply on whether the company should be released from the rules put in place by a 2002 consent decree, legal filings revealed Thursday. Key parts of the consent decree -- which grew out of the 2002 antitrust settlement struck with Microsoft by the U.S. Department of Justice and 20 states -- are scheduled to expire Nov. 12. Those rules, which have been overseen by U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, spell out prohibitions against Microsoft -- including ones that bar it from retaliating against manufacturers -- as well as requirements, such as one that demands the company disclose APIs to competitors so they can make their software run more smoothly with Windows. Reports filed to Kollar-Kotelly Thursday show that regulators are split in their opinions of the decree's effectiveness and whether it should be extended past Nov. 12. On one side, the U.S. Department of Justice and five states -- New York, Louisiana, Maryland, Ohio, and Wisconsin -- told Kollar-Kotelly that the decree had done its job. "The United States and the New York group respectively submit that the final judgments have achieved [their] goals," the group's report read. Thomas Barnett, the assistant attorney general who heads the Justice Department's antitrust division, was more specific. "The final judgments have been successful in preventing Microsoft from continuing the type of exclusionary behavior that led to the original lawsuit," he said in a statement. Six states and the District of Columbia, all part of the group that rejected the settlement when it was first proposed by the Department of Justice in 2001, sharply dissented. Lead by California, the group -- which also includes D.C., Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Massachusetts -- said Microsoft's grip on the industry was as strong as ever. "There can be little doubt that Microsoft's market power remains undiminished and that key provisions of the final judgment have had little or no competitively significant impact. "Microsoft's commingling violation has not been effectively addressed, Microsoft remains in possession of the fruits of its violation, and the competitive conditions antedating Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct have not been restored," the California group said in its filing. "The final judgment clearly has had little or no discernible impact in the marketplace as measured by the most commonly used metric, market shares," the group said. Its report then went on to cite sources, including research firm IDC, to show that in some cases -- server operating system share, for example -- Microsoft's slice has grown dramatically. Not surprisingly, Microsoft reached a different conclusion in its report filed Thursday. "The final judgments created an environment in which market forces can determine the relative success and thus the market shares of participants," the company said. "Measured by that standard, the final judgments have been a success." Earlier this year, Kollar-Kotelly told the plaintiffs that she didn't want last-minute objections to the Nov. 12 expiration, prompting them to file now. A status hearing before Kollar-Kotelly on Sept. 11 -- the next-to-last such hearing scheduled before the decree is set to lapse -- also played a part in the timing. Hints that the California contingent would argue that Microsoft's probation should be extended came this morning in the Los Angeles Times, which quoted California Attorney General Jerry Brown as saying that the 2002 settlement "has not been all that effective." Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, disagreed. "As it was specifically intended, the consent decree defined clear rules for how Microsoft competes without preordaining winners in the technology marketplace," Smith said in a statement. "The consent decree shaped how we view our responsibilities and led us to adopt a set of voluntary principles that will continue to apply, even after major parts of the U.S. antitrust ruling expire this November." In July 2006, Microsoft published a three-principle, 12-tenet manifesto dubbed "Windows Principles: Twelve Tenets to Promote Competition" that it promised to abide by. The first principle on the list: "Choice for Computer Manufacturers and Customers." California and its fellow states shot back. "These 'Windows Principles' are, of course, completely voluntary, and it is unclear whether they are simply a public relations gesture or something more substantive," the group's report stated. Kollar-Kotelly will hear arguments from the parties at the Sept. 11 meeting; at some point after that, but presumably before Nov. 12, she is expected to render her decision. Computerworld is an InfoWorld affiliate
596858
Google Inc. is pressing for an extension to the U.S. Justice Department's oversight of Microsoft Corp.'s business practices, most of which is set to expire in November, according to a court filing Monday.
297378
Microsoft Corp.'s five-year legal battle in Europe moves into a public courtroom for the first time as the U.S. software giant tries to get the European Union's landmark antitrust ruling against it lifted.
610463
Burst.com asked a US judge to penalize Microsoft for destroying e-mails it says the world&#39;s largest software company should have preserved as evidence in antitrust suits.
226326
A judge is ordering Microsoft Corp. to pay &#36;112.5 million to attorneys who successfully sued the software maker for monopolizing a segment of California's market.
386576
A federal courtâs oversight of Microsoft has been extended through January to give a judge time to consider a motion to extend that oversight for another five years.