|
Microsoft has new court date
|
 |
December 19, 1997: 4:08 p.m. ET
Judge to decide on Jan. 13 whether company violated earlier court order
|
WASHINGTON (CNNfn) - A federal judge Friday ordered lawyers for the government and Microsoft Corp. to return to court Jan. 13 for a hearing to decide whether Microsoft should be held in contempt of court for violating an order he issued last week.
In a surprising move, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson told both sides he had just turned on a new personal computer using Windows 95 that had Microsoft's Internet Explorer pre-installed. He then described step-by-step the relatively simple process required to separate the browser from the operating system.
"This whole process took less than 90 seconds and by all appearances Windows 95 worked exactly as it was intended," Jackson said.
Jackson then turned to attorneys from both sides and said he wanted each of them to have a representative explain at the January hearing whether the process of separating the browser and the operating system is really as simple as he demonstrated.
Appearing Friday on CNNfn, Brad Smith, Microsoft's associate general counsel, said what Jackson thought to be a complete uninstall of the browser still left behind fragments of the program.
"The routine that was described in court today in fact does not remove all of the Internet Explorer files; it only removes about 3 percent of them. It's designed to be very easy for consumers to use, but does not do what we were ordered to last week, which was to remove all those files in their entirety," Smith said.
Smith disputed the contention of industry journalists and others who say that removing the Internet Explorer components is a simple process. (267K WAV) or (267K AIFF)
He said Microsoft is concerned about the fact the judge wants a version of Windows 95 without Internet Explorer because the action infringes on its right to market competitive products.
Smith charged that the government has changed its position, first by ordering the company to remove Internet Explorer files from Windows 95, then by telling it to keep most of Internet Explorer functionality in the system.
"It's becoming very difficult for us to know even what the government wants on any given week, much less comply with it. That does create confusion, but we're not the ones that keep asking for different things -- it's really the folks in the Justice Department," he said.
Shares of Microsoft (MSFT) closed down 2-5/16 to 128-5/8.
On Jan. 13, Jackson will determine whether Microsoft is in civil contempt of his order to give consumers an option of having the latest version of Windows 95 without the browser.
The Justice Department charges Microsoft is engaged in anticompetitive practices by marketing the two products together and says the company should be fined $1 million each day it continues the practice. Microsoft insists it is complying with the judge's order, but is appealing his ruling.
Microsoft was given until Dec. 23 to answer the government's civil contempt charge. Justice officials have until Dec. 29 to respond.
The Justice Department had no comment following Friday's brief court session.
Microsoft Vice President Brad Johnson charged government lawyers were not suited to deal with such a highly technical issue and that the government has changed its demands.
"It makes it very difficult for Microsoft to comply with a situation where the government keeps moving the target. You can't slice and dice this with a legal meat cleaver," he said.
Christine Varney, an attorney for browser rival Netscape Communications Corp., said after the proceedings, "This process is not as simple as Microsoft would have you believe. I was very pleased that [the judge] understands the seriousness and urgency of the issue."
The government's position was also bolstered by the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Following the hearing, Edward Black, the group's president, said it came as no surprise to him that the two products were easily separated.
"Guess what -- they have the capability to separate these products," he said.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
