After a six-year court fight between Microsoft and the
federal government and nearly 20 US states, a federal appeals court
rejected efforts by opponents seeking harsher penalties than those
included in the antitrust settlement with the company.
The US Court of Appeals rejected an appeal from Massachusetts,
the lone holdout state, which has been fighting a 2001 lower court
ruling that threw out most of the remedies sought by the nine
states that at the time refused to accept the federal
settlement.
Those other states eventually settled with the company. But
Massachusetts continued seeking remedies that would have included
forcing Microsoft to unbundle its media player from Windows, turn
Internet Explorer into an open-source application and allow the
porting of Microsoft Office to other operating systems, such as
Linux.
Microsoft fought those tougher sanctions and argued that the
remedies imposed by the lower court, which regulated its business
practices, were more than enough to deal with its antitrust
violations.
The court decision largely agreed with Microsoft.
The lengthy decision went through a point-by-point rebuttal of
the claims raised by the opponents and said broadly that the
remedies set out by the lower court can ensure competition. That
ruling, the appeals court wrote, "restores the conditions necessary
for rival middleware to serve as a platform threat to
Windows".
In a statement, Massachusetts attorney general Thomas Reilly
called the decision, "bad news for competition and ultimately...
bad news for our economy".
"This clearly shows that our antitrust laws are not effective in
protecting consumers," said Reilly. "Our high-tech economy will not
reach its full potential unless regulators and the courts are
willing to deal with Microsoft and its predatory practices."
However, Brad Smith, Microsoft's senior vice-president and
general counsel, said that the unanimous decision by the six judges
"sends a clear and emphatic message that the settlement reached two
years ago is a fair and appropriate resolution of these
issues".
"At the heart of this case was the question of whether Microsoft
should be required to remove software code from our products, or
provide multiple versions of our products with certain features
removed," said Smith.
The decision, "clearly states that removing code would be a huge
step backwards for consumers and for the industry as a whole".
Also involved in the appeal were two trade groups that represent
many of Microsoft's competitors, the Computer and Communications
Industry Association and the Software and Information Industry
Association.
Patrick Thibodeau wrties for Computerworld