States say Microsoft remains a monopoly

A group of state attorneys general said Thursday that the consent decree that settled the landmark antitrust case against Microsoft Corp has failed to reduce the company’s monopoly, disagreeing with the assessment of U.S. antitrust officials.

In a periodic review of the settlement, the Justice Department said Microsoft had lived up to the consent decree restricting its conduct. It also said the 2002 settlement had succeeded in promoting competition.

Microsoft had been found to have used its monopoly unlawfully in personal computer operating systems to discourage computer manufacturers from loading non-Microsoft software on their machines.

Most settlement terms are due to expire in November, but some provisions have been extended for two more years.

Led by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, the attorneys general of six states and the District of Columbia said Microsoft would again use its market dominance to “crush” competitors when the court-imposed remedies expire.

“The remedies negotiated by the Department of Justice, and imposed by the court, have had little or no discernible success in restoring a competitive marketplace,” Connecticut Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal said.

Microsoft, based in Redmond, Wash., said it would continue to live up to the settlement.

“The consent decree shaped how we view our responsibilities and led us to adopt a set of voluntary principles that will continue to apply even after major parts of the U.S. antitrust ruling expire this November,” Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said.

Separately, Microsoft said Thursday that it settled an eight-year patent dispute that resulted in a $521-million jury verdict against it. Terms of the accord weren’t disclosed.

The dispute centered on a feature within Microsoft’s Internet Explorer Web browser that allows embedded links. The patent is owned by the University of California and licensed to Eolas Technologies Inc., a closely held company formed by university researcher Michael Doyle.