Expedited Microsoft Hearings Set
The judge in the Microsoft Corp. antitrust case on Wednesday arranged expedited hearings to determine punishment of the software giant, a move intended to get the landmark case considered by the Supreme Court before the case is made moot by the fast-moving technology industry.
If he succeeds--and Microsoft may well oppose his efforts to leapfrog the U.S. Court of Appeals--the whole case could be heard by the nation’s highest court by year’s end, before the next administration takes office.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson asked the Justice Department, the District of Columbia and the 19 states suing Microsoft to submit their proposed punishment of the company this month.
Jackson ruled Monday that the software giant violated antitrust laws by abusing its monopoly in personal computer operating systems. Now he is asking Microsoft to reply to the government’s proposed remedies by May 10. And he set May 24 for an expedited hearing on sanctions, that could range from a breakup of the company to a fine or constraints on the company’s business practices.
Jackson also withdrew his request that the two sides submit their last out-of-court settlement proposals for him to review, according to a court transcript of the jurist’s conference call Wednesday with lawyers representing Microsoft and the government. The request was seen as controversial because neither Microsoft nor the government wanted to show the judge their bottom line before he sets punishment.
Jackson’s efforts to speed up disposition of the biggest antitrust case since the 1911 breakup of the Standard Oil Co. came as Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates visited Washington to lobby lawmakers about the government’s technology policy and appear at a White House conference with President Clinton.
Gates, who worked on Capitol Hill as a page 28 years ago, did not ask for legislative help in battling his antitrust woes but did voice “frustration about the interference this lawsuit has had,” according to Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.).
Later, sitting next to Clinton, Gates praised global advances fueled by information technology and pledged that he and his company would do more to use technology to break down barriers of access to education, health care, development and democratic discourse.
Gorton, one of Microsoft’s staunchest supporters, said the software mogul indicated in a private meeting with some Capitol Hill lawmakers that he would prefer that Microsoft’s antitrust case with the government follow a normal appeals course, rather than take an expedited route to the Supreme Court.
A decision on whether to skip the appeals court won’t come until June or July after Jackson’s expedited hearings are concluded. Jackson would have to receive a motion from either Microsoft or the government requesting such a move, experts say.
“On [Jackson’s] expedited timetable . . . it’s conceivable the Supreme Court could agree to hear the case by October, hear the case in 2000 and issue a decision” next year, said William E. Kovacic, a law professor at George Washington University.
However, another expert termed Jackson’s fast-track court schedule and talk about expedited appeals a ploy to get Microsoft and the government back to the negotiating table they abandoned Friday after more than four months of talks.
“I think it’s possible, but highly unlikely, that Jackson can get this case before the Supreme Court before the next administration takes office,” said Ernest Gellhorn, a law professor at George Mason University.
“Jackson just wants to keep the pressure on for settlement and, second, take some heat off the government in terms of the way the stock market is reacting.”
Whatever Jackson’s aim, the speed with which the Microsoft antitrust case is resolved will determine how much impact the case will have on a technology industry that is moving at warp speed.
Microsoft has cited some of the industry changes, pointing to the growth of non-Windows computing devices such as the Palm organizer and the purchase of Netscape Communications Corp. by America Online Inc. last year as evidence that competition is alive and well.
