This is the first time the two sides have presented arguments since Jackson found Microsoft guilty of violating federal antitrust law. Each side will have an hour to argue its case and 15 minutes to rebut the other’s position.
The judge will have to decide how to deal with the government’s proposal that Microsoft be broken into two companies for at least ten years. The government plan would involve one company owning the Windows operating system; the other company would own all other Microsoft products, including Internet Explorer and Office.
Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said: “We hope that the court will agree with Microsoft and dismiss the government’s overreaching regulatory proposal to break up the company.”
Microsoft has tried to differentiate itself from companies involved in previous US antitrust cases:
- In the early 1980s, AT&T was broken up. However, Microsoft points out that this was an agreed reshaping of a regulated monopoly. Microsoft is not in a regulated industry and is not agreeing to the reshaping.
- In the early 20th century, John D. Rockefeller’s company Standard Oil was broken up. Microsoft argues that this was the dismembering of a trust with a series of oil businesses rather than a single functioning company like Microsoft.
Executives of Microsoft have said they will appeal the case even if Jackson were to accept the company’s own proposals for a remedy, which include giving more flexibility to computer manufacturers in licensing agreements entered into with Microsoft.
However, if Jackson favours the government proposal, Microsoft has requested 6 months to prepare for hearings, a delay which the government is likely to oppose.
