"Microsoft Corp. ruled out an antitrust settlement that would change its structure, putting the software giant on a collision course with the states that sued it and want a breakup to remain a possible penalty...."

"Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal rejected the company's stance, saying he would like to consider a wide range of penalties."

On Wednesday, a privacy group said it plans to file a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission over privacy concerns regarding Windows XP. During a Tuesday press conference, Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked federal and state trustbusters to consider taking action that would delay Windows XP's release. He also called on Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to hold hearings on the matter.

Also Tuesday, software maker InterTrust amended an existing lawsuit against Microsoft, asking for an injunction against Windows XP. The Santa Clara, Calif.-based company charges that controversial product-activation technology found in Windows XP violates four InterTrust patents.

The department said it does not intend to appeal to the Supreme Court at this time. Normally, the appeals court would have waited until at least mid-August for both sides to decide their next move.

"Whether or not Microsoft decides to seek a rehearing, the court has already devoted unusually extensive resources to this matter, including two days of oral argument," said the court papers filed by the department and the 18 states suing the company.

Microsoft has until July 23 to file a response.

NEW YORK (CNNfn) - A federal appeals court Friday denied Microsoft's request to delay further proceedings in the company's four-year antitrust case pending its request for a Supreme Court review.

The decision not to delay the proceedings, which Microsoft had asked the court to do last month when it petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, clears the way for it to be sent back to a new U.S. District Court judge to decide what penalty the software maker should face for antitrust violations.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will oversee all aspects of the federal government's sweeping antitrust case against Microsoft, but the longtime Washington, D.C., resident has little experience with antitrust cases--or business cases in general.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appointed Kollar-Kotelly, whose background rests in criminal law, on Friday after a computer selected her randomly from a field of 10 candidates.

Kollar-Kotelly's courtroom experience includes numerous murder cases, a controversial call on agricultural biotechnology and the labeling of some genetically altered foods, and a high-profile decision that awarded $355 million to an American killed by Iranian terrorists. The Humane Society of the United States also lauded Kollar-Kotelly for her decision to ban the slaughter of migratory birds in Virginia.

Her lack of experience in business cases, specifically antitrust cases, worries some legal experts. They fear generalist judges could make decisions that aren't as informed as those with more first-hand knowledge.

Legal ethics experts are nonetheless bothered by Jackson's remarks, in part because the secrecy prevented Microsoft from challenging the judge on his beliefs or pointing out inconsistencies in his reasoning. Microsoft, for instance, said it would have moved to disqualify the judge immediately had it known about the statements at the time he made them. Experts also said they were concerned about a judge exchanging information with select others who could use it for nefarious purposes, such as insider trading.

"For judges who want to educate the public, there's an easy way to do that," said Ronald Rotunda, a University of Illinois law professor who wrote an academic article about Jackson's comments in the Microsoft case. "You do that in open court. Then the parties can object, and we all know what is said."

A federal appeals court on Friday delivered Microsoft a blow in its antitrust battle with the government, denying a request that could have indefinitely delayed further proceedings in the case.

The order, issued by the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, means that the government can resume proceedings before a federal district judge while the Supreme Court decides whether to take Microsoft's request for appeal.

Why did Gates & Co. seem so hamstrung during the antitrust trial? A new book, Breaking Windows, blames an internal feud between the Windows and Internet camps...

The Silverberg-Allchin struggle, which dragged on after Silverberg severed his relationship with Microsoft in 1999 and resonates even today, forms the heart of Breaking Windows: How Bill Gates Fumbled the Future of Microsoft (The Free Press, $25) by Wall Street Journal reporter David Bank. This solidly reported and smart book explains how Microsoft went, in a few short years, from a behemoth bent on world domination -- and one likely to have achieved it -- to a troubled, albeit very profitable, company uncertain about its role and future. Along the way, Bank captures the human drama of the struggle.

In a reversal of a Clinton-era strategy, the U.S. Justice Department said Thursday it was no longer interested in seeking a court-ordered breakup of Microsoft for antitrust violations and would strive to find a remedy in the 3-year-old case "as quickly as possible."

The department also said it will not pursue the bundling issues: the unresolved claim that the company illegally tied its Internet Explorer browser to its Windows operating systems. The agency is taking these steps to obtain "prompt, effective and certain relief for consumers," it said in a press release. But the Justice Department did indicate that it will seek penalties first suggested by a judge earlier in the case that could affect or delay the company's soon-to-be-released Windows XP operating system.