Chomsky Members:
This is a all new type of "business model."
F. Leon
--------------------
Microsoft sure would love to convince Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson to
ignore the government's breakup plan. Now it thinks it has a way to get
him to do just that.
<http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/microsoft000504.html>
May 4 -- Microsoft may ask a federal judge to disregard the government's
proposal to break up the company by arguing that the Justice Department
improperly based its plan on evidence not presented at trial.
The company says the government introduced new evidence in the breakup
plan it submitted Friday, such as the claim that Microsoft attempted to
sabotage Palm Computing's popular organizers by changing how they interact
with the Windows operating system, according to sources close to the
antitrust case.
Microsoft has until May 10 to respond to the government's proposal to
break Microsoft into two companies, one for the Windows operating system
and the other for Microsoft's office and Internet application programs.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled on April 3 that
Microsoft had violated antitrust laws by using its monopoly on desktop
operating systems to lock out rivals.
Microsoft's response is still being drafted. The company has already said
it will ask for the May 24 hearing to be delayed and for permission to
seek government records and subpoena witnesses.
The software company also objects to the statements of five outside
experts that were submitted to Jackson along with the Justice Department’s
breakup proposal. Microsoft says those experts also addressed issues that
were not brought up in the nearly year-long trial. Paul Romer, a Stanford
professor and government expert, said in one of the filings the company
“indicated a willingness to change the details of its Office applications
to favor devices that run Windows operating systems, even if doing so
disadvantages its customers who now rely on the Palm Pilot.
Another government expert said Microsoft was using its monopoly power to
help Microsoft dominate the market for servers, the computers that run
networks.
New Info in Plan The company believes there is enough new information in
the government's proposed penalty to justify granting Microsoft an
extension in the proceedings to subpoena government documents that show
how the Justice Department arrived at its recommendation.
In particular, Microsoft wants access to internal U.S. Justice Department
documents and possibly the right to cross-examine government witnesses,
Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said.
Some outside experts say Microsoft would be raising a valid argument. "If
Judge Jackson goes beyond the record of the trial, he has to have a very
good reason for doing it," said William Kovacic, an antitrust expert at
the George Washington University School of Law.
Kovacic added that if Jackson does not honor Microsoft’s request to toss
the government's remedy entirely, he would have to allow Microsoft to have
an equal chance at rebutting the new claims, possibly including a
cross-examination of the government’s experts and providing expert
testimony of its own.
Postponement Possible It is possible that Jackson could postpone the May
24 hearing if he grants Microsoft its request.
But Jackson may not grant Microsoft the time or authority it seeks. He has
said he wants to complete the remedy phase quickly. And when Microsoft
made a similar request for months of delay to prepare for the opening of
the trial two years ago, Jackson rejected it. This time, however, Jackson
may be more inclined to grant Microsoft some leeway, Kovacic says. “It
seems that the general principle is sound,” Kovacic said. “A solution of
this magnitude deserves a careful assessment, and I think Jackson will err
on the side of caution.”
Discovery Not Needed Government officials say Microsoft is stalling,
possibly to delay a ruling on a remedy until the next presidential
administration takes office. A government official said that Microsoft was
simply seeking to delay the process. The official said Microsoft had all
of the information it needed to evaluate the government’s proposal and
there was no need to engage in extensive discovery. Stalling may not
accomplish much anyway. Technically, a new administration could settle or
drop the federal case at any time. But even if that were to happen, the
parallel case brought by 19 state attorneys general would remain active,
and the attorneys general have repeatedly said that in such a scenario
they would continue their case.
ABCNEWS.com's Jonathan Dube and the Associated
Press contributed to this report.
===========================================================================
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without
permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment,
scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal
copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of
the copyright owner.
FLW
===========================================================================
|
