The courtroom arguments in the Microsoft antitrust case drew to a
close this week with lawyers for the software giant rejecting Judge
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's call for the two sides to list their
priorities for a settlement.
For the final day in court Kollar-Kotelly asked both sides to list
their remedy priorities.
Steven Kuney, attorney for the nine states that have rejected the
settlement Microsoft agreed with the US Justice Department a year
ago, said: "Priority number one is disclosure."
He was referring to the state-backed remedy that would require
Microsoft to give third-party developers extensive access to
Windows technical information, including source code, to ensure
interoperability.
Second on the priority list was a provision to give PC makers
flexibility in systems configuration while barring any retaliation
by Microsoft. "This is absolutely dead-bang central," said Kuney.
Adherence to industry standards was a third priority.
Surprisingly, one remedy that was a focal point of the state's
proposed reforms - but wasn't in the top three spots - was a
provision requiring Microsoft to produce a stripped-down version of
Windows free of the company's other applications.
Other remedies cited as priorities included the distribution of
Java with Windows and the porting of Microsoft Office to other
operating systems, such as Linux.
Microsoft lawyers, however, rejected the judge's request to provide
a list of "least onerous" remedies that still remained "effective
as a remedy".
Microsoft attorney John Warden said the state's remedy proposal was
"fundamentally flawed in numerous respects," adding that it could
not be fixed "by changing a few words here and there".
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is expected to deliver her verdict at
the end of the summer.