No Delay for Microsoft Trial
A federal judge Monday rejected Microsoft Corp.’s request to delay a March 11 antitrust trial for at least five months, pushing aside the software company’s assertion that it would be “impossible” to be ready in time.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly reminded the Redmond, Wash.-based company that she warned all sides late last year that she intended to adhere to a fast-paced time schedule to wrap up the long-running case.
“No one can claim they lack the resources,” the judge said. “I’m not going to disturb the agreed-to deadline at this point.”
Microsoft requested the delay shortly before Christmas, saying it would be unable to complete its depositions, interview experts and conduct other pretrial research before March 11.
The company said it needed additional time because the remedy plan proposed by nine states was “far broader than what anyone reasonably could have foreseen in September” when the original deadlines were set.
The plan, which would require Microsoft to license its Windows operating system to third parties and reveal the source code of its Internet Explorer browser, is designed to punish Microsoft for its illegal actions.
The states, including California, are suing Microsoft to win tougher penalties than those proposed under a settlement reached in November between Microsoft and the Justice Department.
Although the judge refused to grant Microsoft extra time, she warned the states and other Microsoft rivals that they should not attempt to stonewall Microsoft or delay in complying with the company’s requests for documents and interviews with executives.
Microsoft attorney Dan K. Webb complained that he has requested information from 24 third parties, including several of Microsoft’s corporate rivals that are working closely with the litigating states. So far, 18 have failed to respond, he said.
“They cannot drag their feet,” Kollar-Kotelly said. If necessary, she said she might compel rivals to cooperate with Microsoft or remove them from the case entirely, barring them from testifying on behalf of the states.
“Third parties can’t cooperate with the states and stonewall Microsoft,” Kollar-Kotelly said.
Webb said he still believed it would be “impossible” to complete the depositions of rival executives under the current time schedule.
Brendon V. Sullivan, attorney for the states, dismissed Microsoft’s complaints, noting that the case has been ongoing for several years, giving the company plenty of time to prepare.
Separately, a Ralph Nader-backed consumer group in Washington is complaining about Microsoft’s practice of stockpiling cash, rather than paying dividends. The Consumer Project on Technology warned Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates in a letter that it believes the company’s failure to pay dividends is an “unlawful device to shelter Microsoft earnings from federal income taxes.”
The group suggested that Microsoft’s growing $36-billion cash balance might be subject to a little-known federal tax on “accumulated earnings.”
A Microsoft spokeswoman said the company’s board has no plans to pay dividends. She noted that the U.S. tax code permits companies to retain cash to fund businesses and that high-tech companies frequently maintain large cash reserves for research, marketing and acquisitions.
