Jury Sides With Software Giant in Bristol’s Antitrust Suit
In a decision that could bolster Microsoft Corp.’s antitrust battle against the government, a Connecticut jury on Friday said that the company did not break antitrust laws in its dealings with a smaller rival in the software industry.
A four-woman, four-man jury sided with the world’s largest software maker on all but one count in the case, which stemmed from a complaint filed in August by Bristol Technologies Inc., a small software firm based in Danbury, Conn.-based.
Bristol’s lawsuit, one of a handful of legal actions brought against Microsoft by competitors alleging breach of contract or anti-competitive behavior, is separate from the antitrust complaint filed against Microsoft by the Justice Department, 19 states and the District of Columbia. Final arguments in that trial are expected to begin next month.
Nevertheless, experts say, the jury’s verdict in the Bristol case will probably strengthen the software giant’s resolve to go the distance with the government, rather than settle out of court. The outcome in the Bristol case may also deter other small companies from filing similar lawsuits, experts said.
“They are certainly not breaking out champagne in the Justice Department,” said Ernest Gellhorn, an antitrust specialist and law professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. “If ever there was a case that a jury would be favorably predisposed, you would think it would be little David going up against giant Microsoft. But apparently that wasn’t the case.”
Bristol’s lawyers said Friday that they were studying the verdict in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, Conn., and had not made a decision about whether to appeal.
“We are disappointed with the jury’s findings, and we still firmly believe that Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive behavior against Bristol, and that Microsoft is attempting to monopolize additional operating system markets,” Bristol Chief Executive Keith Blackwell said in a statement.
From the start, antitrust experts said Bristol, which makes software for high-powered server computers that manage traffic on the Internet and other computer networks, faced an uphill battle convincing a jury that Microsoft tried to unfairly dominate that software market.
Bristol, founded in 1991, had asked the jury for up to $263 million in damages, claiming that Microsoft denied it access to computer code and other intellectual property it needed to design its software.
But the jury concluded that Microsoft’s dealings with the company did not amount to a violation of either state or federal antitrust law. The jury upheld only a single count of Bristol’s complaint--that Microsoft violated Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law--and told Microsoft to pay nominal damages of $1.
“I think it’s the right outcome,” said Daniel Wall, a San Francisco antitrust attorney and former trial lawyer for the Justice Department. “I never thought much of Bristol’s case. It’s refreshing that the jury got it right.”
The jury’s verdict, added Wall, serves as a cautionary note to the government, “which was awfully pumped up by the couple of good days it had in court” against Microsoft in the trial in Washington. “This goes to show those days are fleeting--that you have to win in the end.”
Microsoft officials did not return calls requesting comment.
But the company’s associate general counsel, Tom Burt, was quick to seize the verdict as evidence that Microsoft’s business practices are legal.
The “verdict sends a clear signal that the software industry is competitive and healthy, and that business negotiations should take place in a conference room, not a courtroom,” Burt said.
Microsoft’s shares climbed $5.06 to close at $99.44 on Nasdaq, becoming the first company to have a market value of more than half a trillion dollars.
