|
|
Visitors:
A lot has happened in half a year. Massachusetts is now the only state pursuing tougher penalties for Microsoft. All of the other states have dropped their appeals of the antitrust settlement, and starting with California, each state has settled for vouchers instead. Consumers in each of these states would be able to get vouchers for discounts on computer products. Unclaimed vouchers would partially go to schools and partially back to Microsoft. So the value of each settlement depends on how many consumers request vouchers.
In the last two months since Judge Kollar-Kotelly's final ruling, many trade groups have announced plans to appeal the ruling. The Computer and Communications Industry Association and the Software and Information Industry Association announced their plans on December 20, 2002. On January 2, 2003, Consumers for Computing Choice and the Open Platform Working Group also announced intentions to appeal. This follows the November 29, 2002 announcement by Massachusetts that the state would appeal the ruling. West Virginia followed the following Monday. The two states also announced plans to request attorneys' fees from Microsoft. For more information:
U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled today that the Justice Department settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case would sufficiently deter Microsoft from committing any more bad acts, and that additional punishment would be unfair to Microsoft. She also ruled that an independent panel would not be necessary to enforce compliance of the settlement. Instead, Microsoft's board of directors would suffice. For more information:
As the hearings drew to a close on June 20, Microsoft told the judge that none of the sanctions demanded by the states were acceptable and that the states' sanctions were "fundamentally flawed." Meanwhile, the states demanded that Windows become Open Source and described Microsoft as "thuggish."
The hearings into a proposed settlement by nine state attorneys' general neared the end on Monday with briefs by both sides stating how they believe Judge Kollar-Kotelly should rule. In addition, the Judge today ruled on a motion by Microsoft for dismissal of the case due to lack of jurisdiction. Microsoft had argued that since the Justice Department had already settled with Microsoft, a separate proposal by the states should be heard by the Court of Appeals and not the District Court. The Judge disagreed.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly ruled that a memo from a Microsoft executive to Chairman Bill Gates could not be admitted into evidence because it was prejudicial. In the Aug. 2000 e-mail, the executive had suggested that computer makers preferring Linux to Windows should be penalized. Microsoft said the memo shouldn't be introduced since the suggestions were never acted upon.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is still holding hearings regarding the Justice Dept. settlement with Microsoft, since some of the state attorneys general decided not to agree to the settlement. In the meantime, after two years, the Securities and Exchange Commission decided on May 30, 2002 to settle with Microsoft an inquiry into whether Microsoft delayed recognizing revenue until weaker quarters in order to improve the financial results for weaker quarters. In the settlement, Microsoft agrees not to do it again in exchange for no fines or penalties. For more information:
Hearings begin into the settlement and the other proposal from the state attorneys general that did not agree with the settlement.
The Justice Dept. has reached a settlement with Microsoft. Later this month, the Justice Dept. will publish a notice in the Washington Post and the San Jose Mercury News regarding the settlement and the public comment period. Some of the settlement terms include a three person oversight team located at Microsoft to verify compliance, Microsoft can't force computer manufacturers to include only Microsoft software, and computer manufacturers can substitute non-Microsoft software for Windows components. The settlement does not put restrictions on the features Microsoft can include in the Windows operating system. The state attorneys general have not yet decided whether to agree to the settlement.
On Friday, Sept. 28, 2001, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly asked both sides to hold settlement talks 24 hours per day 7 days per week until November 2, 2001. For more information:
On Thursday, Sept. 6, 2001, the Dept. of Justice announced that it will not be requesting a breakup of Microsoft, and that it is dropping the claim that Microsoft illegally tied Internet Explorer to Windows 95 and 98. This effectively means that the Justice Dept. is admitting that Microsoft's only illegal act was to abuse its monopoly in operating systems by dictating what OEMs can do. The Justice Dept. can still focus on Windows XP at the upcoming hearing. For more information:
On Friday, Aug. 24, 2001, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia announced that U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has been randomly assigned as the new judge in the case. For More Information:
On June 28, 2001, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia released its 125 page ruling in the case of United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation. Although the Court found that Microsoft did violate some antitrust laws, the Court reversed on the remedy of breaking up Microsoft into two. The Court has sent the case back to the District Court with a new judge. For more information:
For events prior to June 2001, the following link will take you to a list of articles published by ZDNet News. |
@ Compupolis
June 18, 2003