IP: DOJ seeks to fine MS - Tuesday!

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

From: jspira () basex com
To: farber () cis upenn edu
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 15:26:41 -0500


Dave,


Hot off the press: I think that the IP subscribers will find this of
interest.


/s/ Jonathan


Jonathan B Spira                    E-mail jspira () basex com
The Basex Group, Inc                URL http://www.basex.com
15 E 26th Street                    Tel +1 (212) 725-2600 x113
New York, NY 10010 USA              Facsimile +1 (212) 532-5406


___________________


Justice Dept.  asks judge to fine Microsoft $1 million a day for contempt




WASHINGTON (January 11, 1998 12:19 p.m.  EST http://www.nando.net) -
Microsoft faces federal charges of contempt Tuesday for allegedly violating
a judge's order requiring the software giant to sell computer makers its
Windows 95 software without the company's Internet Explorer Web browser.


The Justice Department has asked U.S.  District Court Judge Thomas Penfield
Jackson to fine the world's largest software manufacturer $1 million a day
for violating his Dec.  11 preliminary injunction.


The government says the fine is needed to force the Redmond, Wash.,
software firm to adhere to a 1995 consent decree designed to increase
competition in the software industry.


The government stepped in last fall, after Microsoft threatened to cut off
Compaq Computer's access to Windows 95.  Compag needs Windows to stay in
business.


Compaq was doing business with Microsoft's bitter rival, Netscape
Communications, which has the lead in the market for browsers -- although
Microsoft is gaining.  Browsers are used to access the World Wide Web on
the Internet.


Microsoft objected that Compaq chose to remove an "icon" for its "Internet
Explorer" Web browser from the Windows 95 desktop.


Microsoft told Compaq in a June 6, 1996 letter that it must restore
"Microsoft Network and Internet Explorer icons on the Windows 95 desktop on
all Compaq Presario machines."


Otherwise, Microsoft warned, it would terminate Compaq's 1992 license
agreement for Windows.


The Justice Department says Microsoft's threat violated the consent degree,
which says Microsoft may not tie the sales of one product to another.


Microsoft has argued that Internet Explorer is an integrated part of
Windows 95.  Under the consent agreement, Microsoft can sell integrated
products.


Judge Jackson appointed Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, an expert in
both computers and the law, to gather evidence and make recommendations to
him by the end of May.


In the meantime, he issued his preliminary injunction to preserve the
status quo, saying that for the time being Microsoft must offer the
products separately.


Microsoft complied by offering an outdated version of Windows 95 or one it
said would not work.  Microsoft argued that its Internet Explorer Web
browser could not be removed without damaging Windows 95.


At a hearing on the matter, Jackson said he had seen a court employee
demonstrate the removal of Internet Explorer.  He said Windows 95 appeared
to work flawlessly after the Microsoft Web browser was removed and asked
the company to explain why computer makers should not be allowed to do the
same.


Microsoft contends it has followed Judge Jackson's order.


"The court's order was very specific: Allow computer manufacturers to
install Windows 95 without the files that comprise the 'retail' version of
Internet Explorer 3.0.  Microsoft has complied fully with the court's
order," the company said in an information book distributed to reporters
late last week.


The Justice Department said Jackson's order was never that specific.


Jackson's ordered the company to "cease and desist ...  from the practice
of licensing the use of any Microsoft personal computer operating system
(including Windows 95 or any successor version thereof) on the condition,
express or implied, that the licensee also license and pre-install any
Microsoft Internet browser software (including Internet Explorer 3.0, 4.0,
or any successor versions thereof) pending further order of the court."


Microsoft says its interpretation of the broadly worded order comes from
one portion of a sentence on pages 15 and 16 of the 19-page ruling.  The
Justice Department says that sentence is merely part of the judge's
reasoning and not part of his order, which is only on page 19.


While the two sides struggle over this, Microsoft has appealed the
preliminary injunction, asked for the removal of Lessig and made a series
of other motions.  It files papers on a frequent basis.


Last week Microsoft said its presentation of its perspective may have been
too strident.  Chief Operating Officer Robert Herbold said in an interview
the company -- and the government -- had said things that might better have
not been said.


"One thing we have to do is, first of all, respect the Department of
Justice and respect the judge, and we're sorry if we have made any
statements that would suggest we do anything but respect them," he said.


By DAVID LAWSKY, Reuters
Copyright ? 1998 Nando.net
Copyright ? 1998 Reuters