Judge delays Microsoft trial date
A federal judge denies a motion by the software giant to dismiss the landmark antitrust case but delays its start date to October 15.
In a related move, the judge granted a request by both sides to delay the trial by three weeks to October 15.
Microsoft last month filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that attorneys from the Justice Department and 20 states had not met minimum standards required for bringing the case. On that basis, Microsoft said, every one of the claims should be decided in its favor without the expense and delay of going trial.
But in a 54-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson rejected all but one of Microsoft's requests, finding "sufficient material facts to be in dispute." Jackson dismissed one claim raised only by state attorneys alleging that Microsoft "leveraged" its Windows operating system to establish a foothold in the market for Internet software. The states' claim, the judge ruled, was "inconsistent" with the plain language in federal antitrust law.
Another Microsoft executive warned that the "situation [raised by Netscape Communications' Navigator browser] is threatening our operating system and desktop applications share at a fundamental level," and declared that "Netscape pollution must be eradicated."
Jackson also cited evidence that Microsoft pressured partners such as Intel and Apple Computer not to develop or market certain software or support Navigator.
Apart from providing the public with new details of the government's case, the ruling may indicate Jackson's willingness to consider allegations the government introduced only recently. The new allegations claim that Microsoft illegally thwarted a wide range of products, including Sun Microsystems' Java programming language, by putting pressure on business partners. Previously, the suit focused primarily on how Microsoft competed against Netscape in the market for Web browsers.
In today's ruling Jackson also appears skeptical of Microsoft's claims that a June ruling by a federal appeals court automatically precludes the vast majority the government's claims. That ruling, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a related case, held that integrated products generally are not in violation of antitrust laws so long as they provide a plausible technical benefit to consumers.
Predictably, both sides in the dispute said they were pleased with the ruling.