| You are in: Business: The Company File | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Saturday, 6 November, 1999, 03:24 GMT
Analysis: Ruling brings settlement closer
By BBC News Online's Kevin Anderson The US judge hearing the government's case against Microsoft went much further than legal experts had expected. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson did not issue his verdict in the case, but his findings of fact were highly critical of Microsoft and sided with the government on several key points. "Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products," he wrote. "The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest," he said.
Legal experts had been expecting balanced findings of fact in an effort to encourage both sides to hammer out a settlement. But the strongly-worded decision might have the effect of bringing Microsoft to the negotiating table. Microsoft might go as far as to agree to providing a robust set of assurances. These could include the software giant pledging not to intimidate or attempt to control the behaviour of other software makers, internet service or content providers, or computer makers. Seeking settlement In statements after Judge Jackson's findings of fact, Microsoft executives, including Bill Gates, said that the company would like to put this case behind them.
Although eager for a settlement, Mr Gates said that the company will continue to protect its right to "innovate in our products." But Microsoft and the states remain significantly apart in settlement talks. The government and the 19 states that brought the antitrust case against Microsoft truly believe that they have the ideological high ground, says law professor William Kovacic, of George Washington University Law School. Before the findings of fact, the government believed that it had the advantage in the case, and Judge Jackson's ruling only reinforced their confidence. Possible remedies The government had made it clear before the release of the findings of fact that it would seek what Mr Kovacic characterised as "nuclear-weapon type remedies."
"That's an anathema to Microsoft," Mr Kovacic said. There is a middle ground, he adds. The government could agree to a robust set of assurances from the software giant that they would not intimidate or attempt to control the behaviour of other software makers, Internet Service Providers or computer makers. But the states believe that these conduct-based solutions are much too mild, he said. If a settlement is to be had, the two sides will both have to make compromises. Compromises that they have both been reluctant to make thus far. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
^^ Back to top News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © MMIII | News Sources | Privacy |
|