Many legal experts initially expressed surprise at Kollar-Kotelly's decision, which perhaps marked the most dramatic turnabout in the antitrust case so far. At one point, Microsoft faced the possibility of breaking into two companies. But in June 2001, an appellate court overturned the breakup remedy, admonishing US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson for not holding a proper hearing before issuing the order. "I was surprised by her decision," said Andy Gavil, an antitrust professor with Howard University School of Law. "But the more you read it, the more the surprise goes away. The story the government and Microsoft told and their reading of the Court of Appeals decision, everything just clicked for her as right. When you have that kind of alignment with the judge and one of the parties, the end is pretty well foreordained." Gavil described the situation as "ironic". He noted that during the original 76-day trial, "everything -- the law, the evidence -- about the government's case really resonated with Jackson. He, the Reagan appointee, resonated with the Clinton antitrust division and (Kollar-Kotelly), the Clinton appointee, resonated with the Bush group." But other more human factors may have played a pivotal role in Kollar-Kotelly's decision-making process. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, Kollar-Kotelly ordered trustbusters and Microsoft to start settlement negotiations. In last week's opinion, "the judge talks about the settlement in glowing terms, at one point praising herself for setting the parties on that path," Gavil said. "Of course, in some respects she's approving the settlement because she's taking ownership over it. She set them on that path, and she's proud of it." Reverberations from Kollar-Kotelly's decision could be felt elsewhere, particularly among the more than 60 private antitrust cases pending against Microsoft. Lawyers filed the majority of the lawsuits after Jackson issued his devastating two-part ruling against Microsoft in November 1999 and April 2000. Most of the lawsuits were filed on behalf of consumers, alleging Microsoft overcharged them as much as $40 for Windows. Four lawsuits filed by four Microsoft competitors -- AOL Time Warner's Netscape division, Be Inc., Burst.com and Sun -- also are pending in Baltimore. Legal experts expect Kollar-Kotelly's decision to make it more difficult for plaintiffs in the private suits to recover damages, even if they prove liability. In a setback this week for Netscape, US District Judge J. Frederick Motz rejected a Netscape request for partial summary judgment against Microsoft. Motz concluded that while the government's case proved Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour hurt competition, it could not be concluded that competitors also were injured. "It cannot be fairly said that the facts found in the government case are sufficient to establish Microsoft's liability to Netscape," he wrote in a Monday opinion.
Think it's all over? The antitrust case against Microsoft can still go back the to Court of Appeals, and then there's the European Commission's investigation... See ZDNet UK's DoJ/Microsoft News Section for the latest headlines.
Have your say instantly, and see what others have said. Go to the Microsoft forum.
Let the editors know what you think in the Mailroom.
