|
Microsoft gains legal edge
|
 |
February 8, 2002: 12:00 p.m. ET
Judge will hear settlement approval before opposing states' arguments.
|
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Microsoft Corp. won a legal victory Friday, when the federal judge in its antitrust case agreed to schedule a hearing some time in the first week of March to approve its settlement agreement with the Justice Department and nine U.S. states.
Microsoft had hoped for an approval hearing to take place before a hearing scheduled later in March, in which the judge will hear arguments from nine states that have refused to settle with Microsoft. Those states claim the proposed agreement is not in the nation's best interest and that the court should put tougher controls on Microsoft's business practices.
Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly's decision follows just a day after the Justice Department and Microsoft asked her for a hearing. In its filing, the department said it had received about twice as many comments from the public opposing the settlement as approving of it.
The department said it and Microsoft would review the settlement proposal, partially in light of the public opposition to it, and could make changes to it by Feb. 27. No specific date for the approval hearing has been set.
The Justice Department first sued Microsoft in October 1997, accusing it of requiring computer makers to add its Internet browsing software to personal computers loaded with its Windows 95 operating system. The suit was expanded and joined by several U.S. states in 1998.
CNN/Money Special Report: Microsoft on Trial
In 2000, Microsoft was found to have violated antitrust laws by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who ordered the company split in two. But the U.S. Court of Appeals overruled Jackson in June 2001 and suggested he might not have been impartial when he made his decision.
Both Microsoft and the Justice Department made conciliatory gestures to each other later in 2001 and began settlement talks in earnest. Finally, in November, they reached a settlement, which must be approved by the Court. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
