Microsoft’s Macro-Gall

Last week, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson barred Microsoft Corp. from requiring computer manufacturers to install its Internet Explorer browser as a condition of using Windows software on their machines. Microsoft promised to respect the ruling, which it called “pretty balanced.”

Now, however, the Redmond, Wash., software giant has turned brazenly defiant. Computer makers who want to install Windows 95 but not Internet Explorer have two choices, Microsoft said in a letter to the U.S. Justice Department. They can install a 2-year-old, commercially worthless version of Windows 95 without the browser or try to remove the browser from a new version of Windows 95. Companies taking the second option, Microsoft warned, should remember one “inescapable fact”: that without Internet Explorer “the remainder of the operating system will not function.”

Microsoft may call that “respect,” but Judge Jackson should use another word--contempt--because Microsoft is clearly violating his court’s authority under civil law.

Computer experts scoffed at Microsoft’s argument that its browser cannot be removed from current versions of Windows 95 without crippling other Windows 95 programs.

Microsoft’s second argument is that “it is completely inappropriate for a government agency to suggest that a software developer redesign a product to make it difficult for customers to find.” In other words, Microsoft apparently believes it is exempt from rulings it disagrees with.

The Justice Department has suggested that Jackson fine Microsoft $1 million a day until it complies with his order. That’s a pittance for Microsoft, but enough to bring home the message that even in Redmond, Americans must obey court rulings they don’t like.