U.S. Urges Supreme Court to Hear Microsoft Appeal

The U.S. government on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to consider Microsoft Corp.’s appeal of antitrust violations on an expedited basis, rather than have the case go first to a lower appeals court.

The Justice Department said in a filing that the case had “immense importance to our national economy,” meeting the standard of a law providing for high court review of major government antitrust cases directly after decision by a trial court.

“If this case does not qualify for direct review under the Expediting Act, it is difficult to imagine what future case would,” argued the government, invoking the act for only the third time in 26 years.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found in June that Microsoft had used its monopoly power in personal computer operating systems to compete illegally, and said the software giant should be split up to prevent future violations.

Jackson’s order takes effect only after all appeals are exhausted.

Last month, Microsoft asked the Supreme Court to let the case be heard first by the U.S. Court of Appeals--a court that ruled for the company in a related 1998 government-initiated antitrust case.

The Justice Department said that route would add a year or more to the appeals process. “Microsoft, which has the benefit of a stay, apparently sees value in delay,” the Justice Department told the Supreme Court.

In a short statement Tuesday, Microsoft said it still believed the Supreme Court would benefit from an initial review of the complex and technical matters by the Court of Appeals. “We look forward to responding more fully in our filing” on Aug. 22, it said.

The company has said its appeal raises 19 issues that the high court would have to resolve, but the Justice Department said the issues could be narrowed to five.

They are: whether Microsoft tried to exclude others from its markets to preserve its own monopoly; whether it tried to monopolize the market for Web browsers such as Internet Explorer and Netscape; whether the firm unlawfully conditioned the use of Windows on the use of its own browser; whether the judge moved the case along too quickly and allowed inappropriate evidence; and whether the decision to break up Microsoft is the right one.