A woman apparently working with the Investigative Group International tried to give janitors cash in exchange for garbage recovered from the Association for Competitive Technology, a free-market group that receives funds from Microsoft and opposes the Justice Department's antitrust suit against the company.
A federal judge this afternoon approved the Microsoft antitrust case for direct appeal to the Supreme Court but surprised observers by also indefinitely staying business restrictions against Microsoft.
Microsoft Corp. today argued against sending its landmark antitrust case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying a thorough review was more important than a quick one."No one is more anxious than Microsoft to see this case brought to a prompt conclusion," the company said today in a legal brief filed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "But the benefits of comprehensive review by the Court of Appeals far outweigh whatever time, if any, might be saved by direct review in [the Supreme] Court."
The U.S. Supreme Court has sent Microsoft's antitrust case back to a lower court for review, a setback for the government that ends months of legal jockeying and speculation.
The war of words between Microsoft Corp. and the U.S. Department of Justice shows no signs of abating, with both sides sniping at one another over the timetable for the appeal and the length of the briefs to be filed.For its part, the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant has continued its delaying tactics by requesting that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia allow it extra time and lengthy legal briefs in its appeal of a federal antitrust ruling, observers say.
Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) has asked the Court for 60 days in which to file its initial brief, 60 days for the DOJ to reply to that brief and then 14 days for the company to respond to the DOJ brief.
In contrast, the DOJ has requested that the court order Microsoft to file its principal brief by Nov. 1, after which the DOJ would respond within 38 days, or by Dec. 8.
Microsoft on Friday won dismissal of damage claims in 38 class-action antitrust suits when a judge held it couldn't be sued by consumers who didn't directly purchase the Windows operating system from the software giant.U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz's ruling spares Microsoft the threat of hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and eliminates the largest block of consumer lawsuits spawned by another federal judge's finding in June that the company illegally defended its Windows monopoly for personal computer operating software.
01-Feb Seattle Post:
U.S. appeals court in Boston gives Microsoft a boost
01-Feb ABC News:
Microsoft Appeals Court Makes Judge's Statements an Issue
01-Feb Wired:
MS Pounded in Appeals Court
Both sides in the Microsoft Corp. antitrust case today faced a steady stream of blistering questions from a panel of seven U.S. Court of Appeals judges. But the attorney representing the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) clearly received the worse of it, with several judges bluntly questioning the foundation of the government's case.
In a highly unusual session devoted to exploring the wayward conduct of a judge whose courtroom is four floors below, members of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals suggested that Jackson had violated a code of judicial ethics through more out-of-court chatter than any other judge in U.S. history.
Microsoft and the government claimed victory Thursday after a federal appeals court vacated an order calling for the breakup of the software giant but also determined that it illegally maintained its monopoly in operating systems.
"Microsoft may have ducked the murder-one conviction and the death penalty, but they sure look like they've been hit with a murder two," said Rich Gray, a Silicon Valley antitrust attorney who closely followed the trial. "They have been found by the full panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals to have illegally maintained their monopoly in violation of the Sherman Act. That's devastating."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit removed Jackson from the case, nullifying his order last year to break up the software giant. The move could pave the way for renewed settlement negotiations. Aside from any immediate impact on the case, however, the court's statements were an unusually harsh rebuke of a sitting federal judge.After the appeal
