NewsMax.com Wires
Saturday, Nov. 3, 2001

"The settlement is consistent with the relief we believe we might have obtained in litigation," Assistant Attorney General Charles James said. "This settlement, however, has the advantages of immediacy and certainty."

James said the proposal would "allow computer manufacturers to actually replace Microsoft products on a function-by-function basis deep inside the [Windows] operating system platform."

The deal, filed in court and made public Friday, would force Microsoft to change its conduct and give rivals access to its software, but includes no civil fines or divestiture.

Trouble may be brewing for the proposed deal, however. James could cite none of the 19 states that have also sued Microsoft as being on board. "It's my hope that many of them will join with us," he said.

U.S. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who must approve the deal before it goes into effect, has given the states until Tuesday to come up with their own deal.

James said any deal with the states would probably be the same as the federal government's.

Appearing with James at the news conference announcing the settlement, Attorney General John Ashcroft said the proposal was "a strong, historic settlement ... that will put an end to Microsoft's unlawful conduct, bring effective relief to the marketplace and ensure that consumers will have more choices."

The deal's biggest effect could be on "middleware": applications such as Internet browsers and e-mail programs.

Microsoft's Windows program dominates the operating system market. The vast majority of computer manufacturers and vendors install Windows on personal computers before they reach the consumer.

In a case reaching back to the mid-1990s, the Justice Department has alleged that Microsoft tried to maintain its monopoly by keeping middleware developed by rivals from working with Windows.

Microsoft allegedly saw the middleware, which was evolving into something resembling an operating system, as a threat to Windows' dominance.

The agreement filed in U.S. District Court on Friday says Microsoft cannot prohibit manufacturers and vendors from "[i]nstalling, and displaying icons, shortcuts or menu entries for any non-Microsoft middleware or any product or service ... that distributes, uses, promotes or supports any non-Microsoft middleware, on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a Windows Operating System."

It also says Microsoft cannot keep manufacturers and vendors from distributing or promoting such middleware, or offering PC users the option of launching other operating systems from the basic boot-load of a Microsoft or non-Microsoft system.

Microsoft is also ordered to give its rivals access to code and documents for Microsoft middleware, and communication protocols used to convey information between applications, so those rivals can design products that "interoperate" with Windows.

Manufacturers, vendors and consumers will be able to substitute competing middleware on Windows under the agreement.

In addition, Microsoft will be forced to license its operating system to major computer manufacturers for five years and must use a "uniform license agreement," assuring a level playing field.

The software giant is banned from entering into contracts that require the exclusive support of Microsoft software, a key element of the government's complaint.

Finally, the agreement prohibits Microsoft from retaliating against any manufacturer or vendor that uses, distributes or promotes a rival's middleware.

The agreement lasts for five years, and Kollar-Kotelly can extend it for two years.

Under the proposal, three independent "enforcers," computer experts with their staffs, will monitor the agreement on-site at Microsoft in Redmond, Wash. The monitors will be paid by Microsoft but will communicate with the Justice Department.

The proposal gives the enforcers access to all of Microsoft's code, books and personnel.

U.S. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson first ruled against Microsoft in June 2000 and ordered that the Windows operating system be spun off from the rest of the company.

However, Jackson stayed his order during the appeal.

Last June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld much of Jackson's findings but struck down his order breaking the company in two. The appeals court said Jackson's anti-Microsoft comments made out of court had so tainted the order that it had to be withdrawn.

Instead, the appeals court ordered any new judge assigned to the case to hear argument on outstanding issues and the remedies for Microsoft's anti-competitive conduct.

After being assigned the case, Kollar-Kotelly ordered both sides into settlement talks and gave them a Nov. 2 deadline.

Copyright 2001 by United Press International.

All rights reserved.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Bush Administration

Microsoft

A product that might interest you:
No kidding: 5 cents a minute long distance - all day, every day!