Call for Mediator in Microsoft Case Linked to State-U.S. Lawyers Split

A federal judge who brought an outside mediator into the Microsoft Corp. antitrust trial was “partly motivated” by what he called “disturbing reports” of a potential split between the federal and state lawyers in the case, according to a court transcript released Monday.

In a private conference in his chambers Thursday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson told government lawyers that he “would not like to have to deal with divergent points of view” on the topic of what sanctions should be imposed on the company.

Although the Justice Department and 19 state attorneys general filed a joint antitrust lawsuit against the company and worked together closely in presenting evidence at the trial, the two camps have been separately studying the thorny issue of what “remedy” to ask Jackson to impose if he rules that Microsoft has broken the law. Separate committees in each camp, for instance, have sought advice from various economists, policymakers and industry leaders.

The federal and state lawyers working on the case have expressed a desire to reach consensus on a remedy, but if they cannot, some state officials have suggested that they would consider making a separate request for sanctions.

The states are believed to favor more aggressive remedies than the Justice Department, though neither group has come to any formal conclusions. Many state attorneys on the case already have decided to push for sanctions that would strip Microsoft of its dominance in computer operating systems, either through a breakup or by forcing the firm to share the secret code that constitutes its Windows software, according to sources familiar with the states’ legal strategy.

Jackson, who ruled early this month that Microsoft has used its monopoly power to stifle competition and harm consumers, had urged the company and the government to settle the dispute before he decides whether the company’s actions were illegal.

Jackson told the lawyers that his decision to appoint a mediator was “partly motivated by what I think are somewhat disturbing reports in the press that the plaintiffs are proceedings on ‘parallel tracks.’ ”