01-Aug Washington Post: Family Ties and Antitrust Whys (washingtonpost.com)

The government's Microsoft case now is officially under the supervision of the son-in-law of Vice President Cheney.

Philip J. Perry, 36, was named acting associate attorney general on Aug. 17, overseeing the antitrust, civil, civil rights, environment and natural resources and tax divisions in the Department of Justice. Perry will fill the role during the U.S. Senate confirmation process for Jay B. Stephens, former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. If Stephens is confirmed, Perry, who is married to vice presidential daughter Elizabeth Perry, will become Stephens's principal deputy.

Remember, Cheney was the administration point person who met with Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer in June.

Sept. 7 - Two key state attorneys general involved in the Microsoft antitrust case said Friday they would "press for remedies that go beyond those requested by the Department of Justice" if they believe the consumer needs further protection, and will make sure that Windows XP receives "close scrutiny" as part of any final judgment. The statement signals a growing rift between the Justice Department and the coalition of 18 states and the District of Columbia, which have been jointly trying the case. The joint statement by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer basically says the states will strike out on their own if they feel the Bush administration is going soft on Microsoft.

On Thursday, the department's antitrust division told Microsoft's lawyers that they no longer needed to fear a breakup, a prospect that had loomed over the company since a federal district judge ordered it last year.

Instead, the government said, it would seek to impose severe regulations on what the world's largest software company may and may not do in the marketplace.

The 18 state attorneys general who are co-plaintiffs in the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit are not expected to sign a settlement agreement--at least in its current form--hammered out between the software giant and the Justice Department, said sources familiar with the matter.

The Justice Department and Microsoft on Friday delivered the proposed settlement in the form of a consent decree to U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. But the states asked the judge for more time to review the settlement, which received little input from the attorneys general, said sources familiar with the negotiations.

Several states have refused to accept an agreement between the Justice Department and Microsoft, choosing instead to press further antitrust litigation against the software company.

The settlement agreement, to which nine of the co-plaintiff states have now given their support, remains essentially unchanged from the proposal put forward by the Justice Department and the software giant on Friday. Any changes would be only clarifications and not a substantive reworking, according to the government.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who did not sign onto the proposal, said that the settlement is a "triumph of hope over history," a deal that is "good but may not be good enough." (Compare the original document with the revised proposal.)

Many outside the case, from consumer groups to Microsoft competitors and antitrust specialists, have said that the deal goes easy on the software titan

Microsoft would only be forced to reveal the code if the company failed to comply with the other terms of the proposed remedy, according to Glenn Manishin, an antitrust lawyer with Vienna, Va.-based Kelley Drye & Warren. In addition, only the source code for software found in violation of the remedy would be subject to this penalty, meaning the stipulation could apply to Windows or other Microsoft products.

"The purpose of a crown jewel provision is to coerce compliance by making the alternative so onerous that the defendant has a great incentive to do what they're supposed to do," Manishin explained. "If there's really a gun to their head, then they'll definitely comply."

AOL Time Warner, Sun Microsystems and several trade groups backed by Microsoft, such as ProComp, rallied behind the states filing the proposal.

The remedy would compel Microsoft to open the source code of Internet Explorer, carry Sun's Java with Windows and sell a stripped-down version of the operating system, among other things.

Instead, to the dismay of critics who had thought that Microsoft's heavy-handed tactics had finally been dealt a death blow, the Redmond, Wash., behemoth and the Justice Department made a deal. The proposed five-year settlement focuses primarily on giving computer makers more power to offer consumers non-Microsoft products such as rival Internet browsers, Internet service providers and media players.

The settlement also gives software developers increased ability to create rival products by requiring Microsoft to reveal technological secrets about the inner workings of Windows so competitors can ensure that their products will work as well as Microsoft's own.

Experts and critics say, however, that the new restrictions are much weaker than those that were included in a settlement offer proposed last year before Microsoft had been found liable for breaking antitrust laws. In addition, the settlement does not expressly require Microsoft to acknowledge that it committed any antitrust violations.

In Microsoft II, the Court of Appeals in-terpreted a District Court's power to appoint a special master quite narrowly. While the Court acknowledged the strong tradition of using special masters to enforce judgments, it raised doubt about the power of the spe-cial master to act beyond essentially minis-terial tasks. In particular, the task of in-terpreting and applying a consent decree to contested facts was held by the Court of Ap-peals to be beyond the statute's power - at least where the District Court did not re-serve to itself de novo review of the special master's determination. Microsoft II, 147 F.3d at 953-56.

This narrow view of a special master's power was a surprise to many. It may well in-terfere with the ability of District Courts to utilize masters in highly technical or complex cases. This Committee may well need to consider whether more expansive authority should be granted the District Courts. Especially in the context of highly technical cases, a properly appointed master can pro-vide invaluable assistance to the District Court judge.

These limitations would not, of course, restrict the appointment of a master in any case to which the parties agreed. And it may well be that the simplest way for Microsoft to achieve credibility in the context of this case would be for it to agree to the appointment of a master with substantial authority to interpret and apply the decree, subject to de novo review by the District Court. Such a master should be well trained in the law, but also possess a significant degree of techni-cal knowledge. But beyond the particulars of this case, it may well be better if the District Court had greater power to call upon such assistance if such the Court deemed such assistance necessary.

Members of the Senate's powerful Judiciary Committee voiced serious concerns Wednesday over a settlement deal announced last month between Microsoft and the Justice Department and nine states.

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., described the settlement as an "Invitation to the next chapter of litigation." Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, concurred, also questioning the "enforcement capabilities" of the settlement agreement.

The senators raised their concerns before kicking off a day of testimony from, among others scheduled: U.S. Assistant Attorney General Charles James; Jay Himes, chief of New York's antitrust bureau; Charles Rule with Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, counsel representing Microsoft; Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig; and Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik.

A federal appeals court Friday denied Microsoft's bid to delay the company's four-year antitrust case, clearing the way for the case to be sent back to a new judge to decide what penalty the software giant should face for antitrust violations.

The Supreme Court, however, still may decide whether to take up Microsoft's (MSFT) appeal. That decision is expected as early as October.

Microsoft filed a motion that, if successful, would bar the public from access to any future depositions in its antitrust case, but The New York Times and other media organizations will likely oppose it.

The Redmond, Wash.-based software behemoth filed a motion Wednesday with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to vacate a standing order in an ongoing antitrust case maintained by 10 states and the District of Columbia. The case grew out of a case originally brought by the Department of Justice.

Under the order, granted in August 1998, the public was allowed to see and/or read seven depositions taken in the original case, including the deposition of Chairman Bill Gates. A deposition is sworn oral testimony generally only available to the parties in the action.

WASHINGTON (January 11, 2002 12:20 p.m. EST) - Microsoft may have damaged its antitrust case by failing to reveal to a federal judge that it lobbied lawmakers, legal experts said.

In court filings, the software giant disclosed only contacts with executive branch officials and not Congress. Records of such contacts are required by the 1974 Tunney Act, written to make sure a company settling antitrust charges doesn't get improper favors from government employees.

"It's for the court and the public to decide whether there was improper influence, and not for Microsoft," said Andy Gavil, an antitrust expert at Howard University.

WASHINGTON--Netscape Communications, a division of AOL Time Warner, filed suit against Microsoft on Tuesday, claiming that the software giant's business practices crushed the onetime upstart's Internet browser.

The lawsuit is based on previous court findings that Microsoft's business practices amid the infamous browser wars of the 1990s violated two sections of the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act.

The American Antitrust Institute (AAI) has set a news conference for Thursday to release details of its suit and a request that the judge overseeing the remainder of the antitrust case wait for full disclosure of the communications before passing judgment on the settlement.

The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) and nine states have agreed to the settlement, which is subject to judicial review under the Tunney Act, governing antitrust settlements.

"The AAI believes both Microsoft and the DOJ have deliberately avoided the disclosure requirements of the Tunney Act process or offered incomplete or misleading information," the institute said in a statement.

In a statement released by the company this week, Microsoft claimed that AOLTW's "uncooperative attitude on document production stands in stark contrast to their active, behind-the-scenes involvement with the non-settling states."

However, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued an order Thursday eschewing Microsoft's assertions, saying that they were too "narrow" to require the court's intervention.

"The court further notes that the aspersions cast in the parties' pleadings as to the respective motivations of the opposing party do not advance the resolution of the issues presently before the court and in truth, only serve to lengthen needlessly the parties' filings," Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

A Nobel prize-winning economist criticized the proposed settlement of the government's antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) , as a public comment period closed on Monday.

Stanford University professor Kenneth Arrow said the settlement reached with the U.S. Justice Department (news - web sites) and nine states in the case failed to improve competition and would not deter Microsoft from future illegal acts.

Arrow's comments were in a submission to District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly by ProComp, a group funded by Microsoft rivals that favors stronger sanctions against the software giant for illegally maintaining its monopoly in personal computer operating systems.

``No decree that fails to cure that illegality and prevent its recurrence can conceivably serve the public interest,'' ProComp said.

WASHINGTON--The nine state attorneys general still pressing an antitrust case against Microsoft told a federal judge on Monday she should bar more than a dozen last-minute witnesses Microsoft plans to call to argue against more severe sanctions against the company.

Attorneys for California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and six other states told U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that Microsoft had used a "hide-the-ball" tactic by naming 23 new witnesses in the case Friday, only hours before the deadline.

The states accused Microsoft of trying to delay the proceedings and argued that the judge should not allow Microsoft to present 16 of the witnesses because the company had shown a "blatant disregard for this court's schedule and for the reasonable and appropriate conduct of litigation."

Microsoft's budget for political lobbying exceeded that of Enron, the judge residing over the antitrust case has heard.

The software giant's budget for its Political Action Committee (PAC) increased from about $16,000 in 1995 to $1.6 million in 2000, according to Edward Roeder, a self-styled expert on efforts to influence the U.S. government, and founder of Sunshine Press Services, a news agency devoted to investigating money in politics. Roeder's report was submitted to Judge Kollar-Kotelly at the end of January. Microsoft has been unable to comment.

omments on the United States v. Microsoft Settlement Provided to the Court on February 14, 2002

On February 14, 2002, the Department of Justice made available to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 47 comments received during the 60-day public comment period relating to the revised proposed Final Judgment. These comments represent the comments characterized as "major" in the Joint Status Report submitted to the Court on February 8, 2002.

This page provides links to each of the 47 comments provided to the Court on February 14, 2002. The comments are listed in alphabetical order by the name of the person or entity submitting the comment.

02-Feb CNN: Judge: Microsoft must give states Windows code

Microsoft will have to supply the computer code for its Windows program to a group of states seeking stiffer antitrust sanctions against the software giant, a federal judge ruled Friday.

Nine state attorneys general had argued that they needed to see the Windows source code in order to verify Microsoft's claim it could not offer a simpler version of the Windows personal computer operating system, stripped of features like the Internet Explorer browser.

"It seems to me that if your side has access to it, then the other side, frankly, should have access to it," United States District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly told Microsoft's lawyers in a conference call with attorneys from both sides.

02-Mar CNet: Settling states question Microsoft tactic

Microsoft on Wednesday asked U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to dismiss the proposals of nine other states seeking stiffer sanctions against the company, arguing they have no right to interfere with the U.S. Justice Department's decision to form a nationwide settlement.

But the states that have settled with Microsoft--including New York, Illinois and Michigan--expressed concern with that argument in a footnote to a filing backing the settlement.

"To assure no misapprehension, the settling states wish to state that they regard Microsoft's dismissal motion as without merit," the states said in their brief.

02-Mar The Economist: Back to the courts

As is to be expected, pro-Microsoft industry groups, such as the Association of Competitive Technology, are in favour of the settlement as it stands. Competitors, such as Sun and AOL Time Warner, which now owns Netscape, are against it. But there are a handful of more disinterested people, and they mostly criticise the settlement.

Perhaps most surprising is Einer Elhauge, a Harvard law professor and co-author of a leading antitrust textbook. He describes himself as a 'strong supporter' of the Bush administration and its antitrust division. But he writes that the deal would 'set a terrible precedent contrary to the public interest', because it provides 'largely meaningless enforcement' and fails to remedy the serious antitrust violations upheld by the Court of Appeals. Above all, he says the agreement would do nothing to keep Microsoft from mingling code.

Three senior economists?Robert Litan of the Brookings Institution, Roger Noll of Stanford University and William Nordhaus of Yale University go even further. They argue that the settlement is flawed because it aims too low: 'The proper goal should be to restore competition to the level that would have been achieved today in the absence of Microsoft's unlawful conduct.' The best remedy, they say, would be to break the company into four parts: one selling applications software and three others selling different Windows products.

02-Mar CNet: Microsoft posts executive depositions

Microsoft released depositions from two top executives Monday related to its long-running antitrust trial, complying with a court order that transcripts and videotapes of five interviews be made available to the media.

Microsoft posted transcripts of depositions from CEO Steve Ballmer and Senior Vice President Jim Allchin on the company's legal news Web site, first removing material considered confidential. A deposition is sworn oral testimony generally available only to the parties directly involved in a lawsuit.

Two other depositions, from former Netscape Communications Chairman Jim Barksdale and Liberate Technologies Chairman Mitchell Kertzman, as well as one expected from Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy, also are being offered to the media. Other depositions, including Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates', are not expected to be made public.

02-Mar CNet: States alter Microsoft penalties

The nine states still pursuing the Microsoft antitrust case modified on Monday their proposal for penalties against the company in response to criticism that it would create confusion in the computer industry.

The states, including California, Connecticut and Iowa, said the changes would make it clear that Microsoft would not be required to sell several different versions of its Windows operating system.

Instead, the company would have to sell just one "modular" version from which software features such as browsers, media players and instant messengers could be removed, according to a statement from Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

02-Mar CNet: DOJ: Microsoft case not strong enough

The U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday conceded that it settled with Microsoft in part because trustbusters failed to prove part of the basic theory of the antitrust case.

In his presentation before U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, Justice Department lead attorney Philip Beck said that Microsoft was able to hold on to a monopoly in Intel-based operating systems only through anti-competitive acts. But the government was not in a position to make that argument stick, he said.

"We tried very hard the first time around, and we were not able to do it," he told the court. "The causation issues"--actually proving the point about anti-competitive acts--"would have been an uphill battle that would likely have been resolved against us."

02-Mar EWeek: ACT to Take Part in Tunney Act Hearing

The Association for Competitive Technology may appear as a "friend of the court" and present 10 minutes of oral argument during the Tunney Act hearing in the antitrust case between Microsoft Corp. and the Department of Justice, Washington District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said in an order filed with the Court late Monday.

In a separate order, she also ruled that ruled that Novell Inc. could file a 25-page memorandum to address the new issues raised by the United States' submission of the Second Revised Proposed Final Judgment.

02-Mar CNN: Microsoft works with Justice to fight cybercrime (so this is the quid pro quo!)

"We've worked very closely, for example, with the Department of Justice in the United States to get additional funding for FBI efforts to target cybercrime," he said.

"They simply didn't have enough people who were technically expert," he added. "We've loaned our experts but we also think it's very important that government have its own experts as part of the policy process in these issues."

02-Mar CNet: 25 states unite to fight Microsoft motion

In their brief, the 24 states argued that the Clayton Act grants them the authority to continue a case "even when the federal government has proposed to settle a case. Congress has granted the states clear authority to proceed independently under Section 16, despite the fact that the federal government has chosen not to act, has proposed to settle a case, has in fact settled a case, or has taken the matter to trial." New York raised similar concerns.

02-Mar The Register: Microsoft 'killed Dell Linux' - States

The States' remedy hearing opened in DC yesterday, and States attorney Steven Kuney produced a devastating memo from Kempin, then in charge of Microsoft's OEM business, written after Judge Jackson had ordered his break-up of the company. Kempin raises the possibility of threatening Dell and other PC builders which promote Linux.

"I'm thinking of hitting the OEMs harder than in the past with anti-Linux. ... they should do a delicate dance," Kempin wrote to Ballmer, in what is sure to be a memorable addition to the phrases ("knife the baby", "cut off the air supply") with which Microsoft enriched the English language in the first trial. Unlike those two, this is not contested.

02-May Wired: States Rebuffed Again in MS Trial

WASHINGTON -- The federal judge hearing the Microsoft antitrust case said Friday she will not consider an internal Microsoft e-mail that advocated retaliation against "unfriendly" computer makers.

This is the second time the nine states suing Microsoft have tried to use the memo. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly earlier had refused to let the states use the memo in questioning Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates...

"The litigation process presumes that the parties will present their case only once and will present their best arguments at that time," Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her order.

02-May Wired: 'It's Possible' Expert Hurts MS

Madnick, who teaches information technology, had previously said that the proposal would make Windows crumble like "a house of cards." But under cross-examination from states' attorney Kevin Hodges, Madnick retreated from his prior testimony and conceded that Microsoft should be able to comply with the scheme.

"Would it be feasible for Microsoft to separate the code that provides Web browsing capabilities from the code that provides operating system functionalities?" Hodges asked.

Madnick hesitated, then replied: "It's possible."

02-May Wired: Microsoft Witness Backtracks

WASHINGTON -- An economist defending Microsoft Thursday backed down from his claim that many of the antitrust penalties sought by nine states were developed by Microsoft's fiercest competitors.

The allegation has been a central part of Microsoft's case, supported by documents and e-mails from companies such as AOL Time Warner, Novell and Sun Microsystems. University of Virginia economics professor Kenneth Elzinga said in written testimony that the competitors 'developed' the states' penalty proposal.

Under questioning by states' lawyer Steven Kuney, Elzinga conceded that language in the states' proposals are 'almost identical' to those offered by the previous trial judge in the case as well as the judge who tried to negotiate an earlier settlement.

'Are you testifying under oath that that provision was developed by Microsoft's competitors?' Kuney asked Elzinga.

"No," Elzinga replied. 'Perhaps 'supported' is a better word.'

02-Jun: Burst.com Files Patent & Antitrust Lawsuit Against Microsoft

2. Microsoft anticompetitively damaged Burst in violation of federal and state antitrust laws in many of the same ways that prompted the federal courts to find that it monopolized the market for Intel-compatible operating systems.

02-Sep CNet: Group: Windows update does end run

In a 12-page letter sent to Assistant Attorney General Charles James and to Elliot Spitzer, New York's attorney general, ProComp , a group partially funded by Microsoft competitors, charged the company with "at least six separate and ongoing violations" of one section of the proposed agreement.

02-Oct Washington Post: Microsoft Judge Takes His Case To the Public

Jackson acknowledges that "many judges -- perhaps most -- believe the canon imposes a virtual code of omerta [silence] forbidding any public commentary while a case remains unfinished in any respect, quite possibly forever. . . . The ostensible reason is that anything said informally, but publicly, about a case must perforce detract from the court's 'appearance of impartiality.' "

"So interpreted, the canon represents a variant of that dubious maxim of leadership: Never apologize; never explain," Jackson said. "It also suggests that the judiciary is more concerned with appearances than with actuality."

Turning back to our appeals court ruling, the appellate judges note that the judicial code and 28 U.S.C. subsection 455(a) require judges to recuse themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The appellate judges said that likely was the case, for example, when Jackson, in explaining his order to break up Microsoft, told a reporter a joke about a trainer who slaps a mule with a two-by-four to get its attention.

02-Nov CNet: Judge OKs findings in Microsoft lawsuits

In what could be a legal blow to Microsoft, a federal judge has signaled that antitrust plaintiffs who filed recent private lawsuits against the software giant might be able to use findings from the government's earlier case, according to published reports.

The comments by U.S. District Judge Frederick Motz in Baltimore were made during a one-day hearing on a motion by plaintiffs Thursday. The plaintiffs--including number of software makers-- asked that they be allowed to base their lawsuits on the antitrust violations that were established in the Justice Department's long-running case against Microsoft.

Last week, a California state court reached a similar conclusion, saying that plaintiffs in the state who have filed a suit against Microsoft can rely on the federal findings.

02-Oct IDG: MS/DOJ: Class action status sought for consumer suits

A FEDERAL judge in Baltimore heard arguments Tuesday on whether more than 100 antitrust suits filed by consumers against Microsoft should be grouped together as a class action suit.

In a motion hearing before Judge Frederick Motz of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, lawyers Stanley Chesley and Michael Hausfeld argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in favor of class certification of the suits. The consumers' key argument is that Microsoft overcharged for its Windows operating system and violated competition laws in an effort to protect the monopoly status Windows enjoys in the consumer market.

Motz will consider the arguments and rule in due course, a clerk for Motz said.

02-Oct CNet: Microsoft class-action suit dismissed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond, Va., ruled 2-1 that Gravity had no legitimate claim against defendants Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and Dell Computer.

Gravity filed a class-action suit in February 1999 claiming that its own litigation support software was being undermined by Microsoft's alleged monopoly and refusal to release details about its programming hooks in Windows. In addition, Gravity argued that all three companies and NEC Packard Bell were guilty of "conspiratorial conduct" to lock up the market for operating system software, word-processing software and spreadsheet software in violation of the Sherman Act.

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz of Baltimore threw out the case in January 2001. Gravity tried again, asking to file a new lawsuit that mentioned only Microsoft, Dell and Compaq Computer (now part of HP).

Motz denied the request, a ruling that the appeals court affirmed. "Although Gravity alleges that Microsoft's agreements with Compaq and Dell individually produced anti-competitive effects, it does not provide any factual basis to support this allegation," the appeals court ruled.

---

02-Nov CNet:

Judge OKs most of Microsoft settlement

The judge approved the settlement almost wholesale, basically rejecting a call by nine nonsettling states and the District of Columbia for stiffer sanctions.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, one of the plaintiff states' leaders, referred to the decision as the "latest chapter" in the case, but would not comment on whether the plaintiff states would appeal the judge's decision. "We have to analyze the decision and talk to our colleagues" first, he said.

Kollar-Kotelly did call for some changes, requiring Microsoft to disclose communications protocols in Windows six months earlier than the company or the DOJ had specified in their joint proposal.

Kollar-Kotelly also modified the oversight of Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Originally, the proposal included a technical committee and an internal compliance officer, both potentially influenced by Microsoft. In Friday's ruling, the judge combined the two into a compliance committee made up of Microsoft board members. In turn, the committee must hire a compliance officer, to report to the committee and to Microsoft's CEO. As corporate officers and non-Microsoft employees, the compliance committee in theory would be more likely to appropriately enforce the settlement in this era of renewed corporate responsibility.

02-Nov Reuters: Sun Micro to Pursue Billion-Dollar Microsoft Suit

Santa Clara, California-based Sun filed suit in March seeking more than $1 billion in damages and claiming its business was damaged by Microsoft's abusive monopoly, which impeded the use of Sun's Java software platform.

Sun's Java and Microsoft's .NET are competing architectures for the next generation of the Internet, especially for mobile and wireless uses.

"We will... continue to pursue our civil case and to cooperate with the European Commission's case against Microsoft to ensure that the company does not continue to use its monopoly position to become the gatekeeper of the Internet," Sun Special Counsel Michael Morris said.

He said the nine states that had challenged the Department of Justice settlement also had plenty of ammunition to appeal their case.

"The weak steps that Microsoft has taken to comply with the requirements already show that the settlement will be ineffective in curbing Microsoft's monopolistic and anti-competitive practices and how difficult it will be to enforce," Morris said.

Microsoft also faces private antitrust suits from consumers and from the world's largest Internet media company, AOL Time Warner.

02-Nov Linux and Main: Interview: Eben Moglen on the Microsoft decision and its ramifications

We regard "trusted computing" and all the various forms of protected-boot, closed hardware, whether adopted by industry consensus, or by legislative mandate, as in Sen. Hollings's legislation presently called "CBDTPA," as an absolute threat to the existence of free software. We regard Microsoft's interest in those subjects as plainly informed by the opportunities it presents to exclude from the consumer market its only viable competitor. There is no question that "trusted computing" has to be taken seriously as a profound threat to the free software ecology.

We point out to our friends in the hardware business, all the time, the difficulties that this presents, not just to us but to them, and we believe that within limits they have been entirely understanding of our common concerns. Accordingly, with respect to government-mandatedso-called "trusted computing" -- the pro-Disney legislation sponsored by Sen. Hollings, for example -- IBM and Hewlett-Packard have been extremely cooperative with the free software movement, and with the Free Software Foundation in particular, in making our point of view clear and understandable by government.

...

I also think, however, that the question you are asking has a specific answer for your readership. Which is that we regard taking measures in the license, in the GPL, to assist free software in resisting "trusted computing" as a very important facet in drafting GPL version 3. It is one of the reasons why I expect that there will be a GPL version 3 draft for public discussion within the next several months. And it is precisely in order to consider our options with respect to "trusted computing" that I am again briefly delaying release of such a draft.

02-Dec Smart Money: Two States Appeal Microsoft Antitrust Decision

West Virginia will join Massachusetts in appealing a U.S. District Court decision that rejected a tough antitrust remedy sought by nine states in the Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) antitrust case.

Attorney General Darrell V. McGraw Jr. on Monday filed a notice of appeal Monday, said Doug Davis, an attorney in Mr. McGraw's office who is working on the Microsoft case. West Virginia and Massachusetts are the only two of the nine states that are pursuing an appeal.

U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in November approved a settlement of the case reached by the Justice Department and nine of 18 states involved in the case. At the same time, she largely rejected a tougher remedy sought by the nine states that refused to sign the settlement.

On Friday, seven of those states, including California, announced they wouldn't appeal her decision but would focus their efforts on enforcement of the settlement.

02-Dec CNet: Trade groups appeal Microsoft settlement

The Computer and Communications Industry Association and the Software and Information Industry Association said they had filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, announcing their intention to appeal.

03-Jan CNet: Microsoft foes urge antitrust punishment

In court documents released Thursday, the Consumers for Computing Choice and the Open Platform Working Group asked for permission to intervene in the case so they could appeal the settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Justice Department.

The groups are hoping to persuade the courts to impose additional sanctions on Microsoft. Because U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly approved the settlement, saying after weeks of hearings that it benefited consumers, the deal will become final unless an appeals court can be convinced to modify it.

02-Dec The Inquirer: Dissenting states took Microsoft money to drop antitrust appeal

Microsoft's chief lawyer first approached California's attorney general with a special deal which would cover it and the other states' expenses if they dropped an appeal against the ruling they were making.

And California and six other states decided to accept Microsoft's offer and took $25 million from the software company and an extra $3.6 million to enforce the DoJ forged deal, the paper said.

If the states had decided to carry on with their appeal, Microsoft would fight the case to the limits of their ability and also fiercely contest costs, the newspaper said.

03-Jan CNet: Judge refuses to dismiss Microsoft case

A federal judge on Friday refused to dismiss antitrust cases filed against Microsoft by two small rival software companies.

Ruling simultaneously on suits by Be and Burst.com, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz said he would allow the cases to proceed.

"I am satisfied there are sufficient allegations as to federal antitrust claims," Motz said in court after hearing arguments from the parties.

03-Jan Washington Post Calif. Consumers Settle Microsoft Suit

California consumers settled their class action suit against Microsoft for $1.1 billion Friday, bringing an end to the contentious legal action which accused the software giant of violating the state's antitrust and unfair competition laws. Under the agreement made public late Friday, proceeds of the settlement will be distributed to members of the class in the form of vouchers redeemable for any manufacturer's computer-related products and software.

03-Mar Wired EU Experts: MS Violates Antitrust

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- European Commission experts have concluded that Microsoft violated EU antitrust rules, but their proposed remedies need refining to withstand court scrutiny, sources familiar with the case said.

The experts have proposed two major requirements: making Microsoft share more proprietary information with its rivals and uncoupling its Media Player audiovisual software from the Windows operating system, sources said.

03-Jun Washington Post Rivals Say Microsoft Flouts Deal

Microsoft Corp. is trying to license key pieces of its technology at inflated rates and under onerous conditions, according to competitors who charge that the software giant is thwarting its antitrust settlement with the federal government.

The actions are discouraging rivals from participating in the licensing program, which is an important element of the agreement that Microsoft struck with the Justice Department and several states 18 months ago.

The software giant's major competitors were hoping the program would allow their systems to better interact with Microsoft's dominant Windows operating system, which resides on 95 percent of the world's personal computers. But none of those top rivals has signed up, and so far only four other companies are participating.

The low number of licensees concerns the Justice Department, which says it is devoting extensive resources to evaluating the program. But several companies say they fear the department is not forcefully pushing Microsoft to comply with the terms of the deal.

03-Jul Washington Post U.S. Faults Microsoft Licensing

Microsoft Corp. is taking too long to alter how much it charges competitors for technology that is necessary for their products to work with the software giant's systems, the Justice Department told a federal judge yesterday.

In a written report card on how well Microsoft is complying with its 2001 antitrust deal with state and federal prosecutors, Justice Department lawyers said they might need the court to force Microsoft to act more quickly. In other areas of the settlement, department lawyers praised Microsoft's compliance.

04-Apr Cringely Timing is Everything

Much the same thing is happening in the U.S., too. Microsoft is laboring under a consent decree ostensibly being monitored by Harry Saal and his team up in Redmond, but I'm hearing enough grumblings through friends of friends to believe that Microsoft isn't paying a lick of attention to complying with that agreement. Why should they? Compliance just slows the company down without providing Microsoft any advantage. While it may look like the company agreed to comply, what is really happening is the company agreed to be bound by certain requirements, not necessarily to comply with them. At the end of the day, they can always opt for what's behind door number three, which is the DoJ's punishment for noncompliance. But Microsoft knows that any such punishment won't be enough to reverse the gains of noncompliance, and that there is a good chance there will be no punishment at all.

Viewed as a digital system, Microsoft gains more from noncompliance than from compliance. Microsoft risks less through noncompliance than it would through compliance. Dynamic action gives Microsoft effective control of the master clock because wait states can always be added by hiring more lawyers. And if all else fails, Microsoft can always pull up stakes and move to some other country, the very threat of which would stimulate a frenzy of political ass-kissing that could ultimately result in Bill Gates being named king of somewhere or other, possibly even of the U.S.

04-Apr Globe & Mail: Microsoft's long-playing business record

Losing or settling case after case, Microsoft has tested the bounds of antitrust and patent infringement law, with little evidence that its power has waned or that its behaviour has been substantially changed. Rivals and many legal experts say antitrust law itself has come out the worse for the skirmishes, while Microsoft appears to have built the ongoing scrutiny, fines and remedies into a strategy showing scant sign of reform. Even last month's tough stance by the European Commission may not be able to slow the giant.