A rchive Date
[ 10-06-2000 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Microsoft ]
|
[Legal experts: Settlement talks unlikely
By Anne Knowles, PC Week, and Lisa M. Bowman
November 5, 1999 10:51 PM ET
Even though U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruling backed the government's case in almost every way, trial watchers said it's still unlikely the document will put much pressure on the company to settle.
The ruling represents the first indication of which way Jackson is leaning in the trial. While many people watching the trial thought the government had done a better job than Microsoft in arguing its case, few expected such a one-sided ruling.
"It's amazing. He has bought into the government's entire story on the browser, QuickTime, Intel and Java," said Rich Gray, a Silicon Valley attorney and antitrust expert. "It is a huge victory for the government and a huge upset for Microsoft."
Gray called the opinion "devastating" for Microsoft. "It supports, if the judge is so inclined, the severest possible remedies," he said. "They're in trouble."
'I'm elated'
Karma Giulianelli, a former DOJ attorney on the case who left to join the law firm of Bartlit, Beck, Herman, Palenchar, & Scott in Denver, expressed a sense of vindication, even if the case is a long way from wrapping up. "I'm elated," Giulianelli said. "If you ever had a case with a monopolist using their power to maintain their monopoly, this is that case,"
Stewart Gerson, an antitrust litigator and partner with Epstein Becker and Green in Washingon D.C. said the ruling didn't contain one argument in Microsoft's favor.
But many trial watchers, including Gerson, don't expect the ruling to ignite fruitful settlement negotiations.
Gerson said that while the company still could try to settle, "the odds are at least as good that Microsoft will take its chances in the appeals court."
Gene Crew, an attorney with Townsend, Townsend & Crew agreed. "The judge just really rips Microsoft's arguments," said Crew, who is representing plaintiffs in a private antitrust case against the company. "But they're not in settlement mode."
The appeals court that could eventually hear the case already has sided with Microsoft twice, and that could give the company confidence in continuing to push forward without settling.
In 1995, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned a decision by Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin, who had refused to sign a consent decree between Microsoft and the DOJ because he felt it wouldn't rein in the company.
And in 1998, the appeals court reversed another anti-Microsoft ruling, this one by Judge Jackson. In that ruling, the appeals court declared that Jackson was wrong in ordering the company to unbundle its Internet Explorer browser from Windows 95.
Microsoft may be betting that the appeals court will side with it yet again.
Microsoft: No monopoly here
Meanwhile, the company said Friday's ruling was only the first of many steps in the case, which could include appeals reaching as high as the U.S. Supreme Court.
"One area in which we respectfully disagree with the court is in regard to monopoly power," said William Neukom, Microsoft's general counsel during a press conference held after the document was released. "No segment of the U.S. economy is as intensely competitive as the market for computer software."
Furthermore, Neukom said, Jackson failed to provide evidence of three key antitrust violations: product tying, foreclosure of distribution and anti-competitive actions resulting from collusion.
But lawyers watching the case say that Microsoft's prospects of prevailing seem more remote than ever right now. Jackson's ruling Friday basically lays the ground rules of the case going forward. Higher courts will defer to Jackson's findings, including his ruling that Microsoft holds a monopoly. Gray said the company faces an uphill battle when it comes to trying to convince the judge that it did not break any laws.
"This ruling is going to be very difficult to argue away with fancy lawyer talk," Gray said.
 World Fact Book (CIA]
|