Various reports citing "sources familiar with the case" say federal judge Thomas Penfield Jackson will rule some time after today whether Microsoft broke U.S. antitrust law. Penfield had set a March 28 deadline to learn whether the software emperors and the government needed more time to talk settlement, the reports say.
But Reuters says whatever the talks' status, "the conclusions of law themselves were not necessarily to be released (March 28)."
Last November, Jackson handed down findings that Microsoft abused monopoly power to injure rivals and consumers. If Microsoft and the government settle, the case would end - but if not, Jackson's conclusions of law would push the case to another phase to consider remedies and potential punishments.
Various reports March 27 indicated government attorneys were interested enough in Microsoft's settlement offers that they expected Jackson to delay his verdict.
According to MSNBC - in which Microsoft is a partner - the proposal covers a wide range of Microsoft business "that the company is willing to modify in hopes of avoiding what many widely believe will be a finding by Jackson that Microsoft violated antitrust laws."
The network says Microsoft gave in regarding some pricing practices, including ending preferential pricing for favored companies, MSNBC continues, as well as allowing more access to critical parts of Windows source codes - critical "for third party developers" as the "blueprints" letting other software work with Windows easily.
But Microsoft still opposes any remedy which involves terms tight enough to involve heavy governmental or judicial oversight, "essentially putting the government into the software approval process," as MSNBC said.
Meanwhile, the Computer and Communications Industry Association - a consistent Microsoft critic - says the question isn't exactly whether Microsoft broke antitrust law but when and how often. In fact, CCIA president Edward Black says there's only one appropriate remedy - bust the software giant up completely.
Almost a year ago, Black thundered that Windows2000 wouldn't change a thing; that Microsoft still planned leveraging "its desktop monopoly" into an enterprise market monopoly. "The Microsoft plan to converge the desktop and enterprise markets to force desktop users to Windows 2000 (formerly NT 5.0) is still in place," he said on April 8, 1999.
"This strategy is evident in Microsoft's continued requirement that Windows certified applications must run on both Windows 98 and Windows NT," he continued. "Microsoft continues to market and promote Windows NT with the same questionable practices that allowed it to build a monopoly in the desktop market. It is critically important that the reality of this marketplace is reflected in the remedies chosen to confront Microsoft's illegal behavior. Microsoft continues to protect its existing monopoly and to expand that monopoly to the enterprise market."
Black hasn't exactly softened his position. In a March 27 teleconference, he said the only remedy for stopping Microsoft's "pattern of abuse" was breaking the company apart.
Microsoft's latest offer to settle the antitrust case included a commitment to separate Microsoft Internet browser programs from Microsoft operating systems, but antitrust attorney Donald Falk tells Wired that's just a "Swiss cheese" offer. "I'm not really sure it solves anything at all," he told the magazine.
The Justice Department seems to agree, giving the Microsoft proposal less than a warm response last weekend, in hand with state attorneys general who joined in the suit against Microsoft. On the other hand, there are those in the industry who believe Microsoft could still beat the case on appeal.
Or could it? "I don't see any of the case being terribly vulnerable on appeal," says American Antitrust Institute board member Robert Lande to Wired. "Even if it did not remain intact, the chances at the end of the day of Microsoft receiving anything less than a substantial conduct remedy are slim."
