http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020416/wr_nm/microsoft_dc_148

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government on Monday opposed Microsoft
Corp.'s effort to throw out claims against it by nine states on
grounds that a proposed antitrust settlement has already been reached
with the federal government.

While questioning the wisdom of the states' proposals, the Justice
Department (news - web sites) said states refusing to back its
settlement with Microsoft have the authority to pursue more severe
antitrust sanctions, despite company claims to the contrary. [...]

---

Microsoft statement:

   This afternoon, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief, in
   response to a request by the Court, on our Motion to Dismiss.
   
   The following is a statement you can use on behalf of the company on
   today's filing by the DoJ.
   
   We are gratified that the Department of Justice has weighed in to
   support major elements of our motion to dismiss as well as the key
   points we made in our motions for judgment as a matter of law filed in
   court today.  In their brief, the DOJ acknowledges that our Motion to
   Dismiss raises important issues of federal antitrust enforcement
   policy that are significant in the Court's ultimate decision on this
   case.  The brief also confirms that the non-settling States are
   required to prove that they have sustained an antitrust injury as a
   result of Microsoft's actions, which the States did not do in their
   case-in-chief.  
   
   
   In addition to all of Section III of the DoJ brief (p. 21-26), the
   following excerpts underscore these points.
   
   
   p. 15-16
   
   The United States, of course, strongly believes that entry of the
   proposed final judgment in No. 98-1232 is very much in the public
   interest.  Further, the United States recognizes the danger that the
   relief being sought by the non-settling States - much of which
   diverges from the SRPFJ, but from any theory advanced or relief sought
   by the United States and the States earlier in this litigation - may
   harm consumers, retard competition, chill innovation, or confound
   compliance with the SRPFJ.  The United States is hardly indifferent as
   to the wisdom or propriety of granting such relief in this case. 
   
   
   p.26
   
   The non-settling States' remedial proposals are vast in their scope
   and potential impact upon the information technology sector of the
   U.S. economy and beyond.  They diverge from the proposed settlement
   not so much in their approach to prohibiting the specific conduct
   found by the Court of Appeals to be acts of monopoly maintenance, but
   rather in their effort to extend the relief to new products, new
   services, new markets, and even new theories of liability in the name
   of deterring future violations as a prophylactic matter.  Given the
   nature of state standing under Section 16, the Court may properly
   inquire in the exercise of its equitable discretion whether a small
   group of States are the parties best situated to obtain relief of such
   broad reach and implication.
   
   Proposed remedies without a clear basis in the decision of the Court
   of Appeals risk straying from appropriate antitrust enforcement
   grounded in law.  Proposed remedies that chill legitimate innovation
   and product improvement - even by a monopolist - can deprive the
   public of significant competitive benefits.  Perhaps most importantly,
   remedies that conflict with or undermine the enforcement judgments
   reached in the SRPFJ endanger our practical system of coordinated
   national antitrust enforcement.  These considerations become magnified
   in significance when, as here, the competitive issues are national in
   scope, the plaintiffs seeking relief have neither the authority nor
   the responsibility to act in the broader national interest, and the
   plaintiff with that authority and responsibility has taken a different
   course.  The emphasis upon the equitable powers of the Court in
   Clayton Act Section 16 is the means provided by federal antitrust law
   to avoid enforcement authority in this extraordinary case.
   
   
   If you have any questions, please call me, Jon Murchinson or Vivek
   Varma.
   
   
   Jim Desler
   
   Microsoft Corp PR
   



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign this pro-therapeutic cloning petition: http://www.franklinsociety.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to