[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This NEWS.COM (http://www.news.com/) story has been sent to you from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Microsoft wants injunction clarified By NULL Reuters May 7, 1998, 7:00 a.m. PT http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C21885%2C00.html?sas.mail WASHINGTON--Microsoft is asking a federal appeals court to clarify whether a preliminary injunction already under appeal prohibits the bundling of its Internet Web browser with Windows 98. The motion, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, would have no effect on possible new legal actions under consideration by the Justice Department and state attorneys general. Such new actions under the Sherman antitrust act may be filed in a matter of days. The Sherman act is aimed at preventing monopolies from unfair competition practices. Microsoft said it has a separate set of concerns because of the existing preliminary injunction, which was issued last December by U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. Microsoft appealed against that preliminary injunction on December 16, asking the higher court to overturn it. Written and oral arguments ended last month but the appellate court has yet to issue its decision. Microsoft said when it decided to appeal the decision it did not know when it might be releasing Windows 98 and so it made no arguments about the new product. But, the company argued, it will be giving computer makers Windows 98 on May 15 and selling it to the general public on June 25. That release could lead to new legal problems under the injunction. The December injunction bars Microsoft from bundling its Internet Web browser with any Windows product, "including Windows 95 or any successor version thereof." Microsoft noted in its argument that the judge's injunction, as written, "included Windows 98." And so the company asked the appellate court to clarify that the preliminary injunction does not in fact apply to Windows 98. "In order to comply with the preliminary injunction insofar as it relates to Windows 98, Microsoft would have to create a whole new operating system that did not provide support for Internet standards," the company said. It said that Web capability was so central to Windows 98 that removing it would result in a product that "would bear little, if any, resemblance to Windows 98." A Justice spokesman said: "Our response will be filed promptly." However, a Justice official noted that the judge's order last December was valid until further orders were given by the court. That, he said, was "essentially an invitation to come back and seek clarification in the District Court. Microsoft has avoided doing so and instead has contrived an 'emergency' where none needed to exist." In its brief, Microsoft said Justice had "refused to enter a definitive agreement immunizing Windows 98" from being included under the preliminary injunction. The DOJ official said that kind of immunity was not up to the department. He said the injunction "is a judicial order, not a contract. It is up to the judge to decide what his order means. The department has offered to join in an effort to obtain a determination by the District Court." Microsoft chairman Bill Gates's late night meeting Tuesday with senior DOJ lawyers yielded no progress toward resolving the conflict between the government and the software Goliath, the Wall Street Journal reported today. Gates met for two hours with lead antitrust prosecutor Joel Klein and asked that the government not restrict Microsoft's ability to add new features to its flagship Windows operating system software, the Journal said, citing unnamed participants in the meeting. Gates argued that such a move would stifle innovation and hurt consumers, the paper said. Gates, accompanied by Microsoft general counsel William Neukom and other outside legal advisers, did most of the talking and was forceful in his presentation, the Journal said. He argued that Windows does not have a monopoly in operating system software, citing the UNIX, O/S 2 and Apple Computer systems. The meeting took place at the Washington office of the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, the paper said. Dan Goodin contributed to this report. ------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
