Microsoft agrees to settlement changes
Published 9:00 pm Thursday, February 28, 2002
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Microsoft Corp. and the Justice Department disclosed significant changes Thursday to the proposed settlement in their landmark antitrust case, partly to stem criticism from many legal and technology experts that the software giant was getting off too easy.
The company and the government outlined the changes in court papers filed in Washington with U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who must decide in the coming months whether to approve the settlement.
The most significant change deletes an entire provision of the settlement that some state attorneys general — and some rival companies — accused Microsoft of manipulating so the company could use valuable hardware technology patents from computer makers without paying them.
Microsoft, which had fought for the provision during the settlement talks, told the trial judge that it "continues to believe that the provision was reasonable and justified," but that it agreed with the government’s request to drop it "in the interest of eliminating confusion."
Nine states that rejected the settlement had accused Microsoft of using this provision to prohibit computer makers from enforcing their patents against the software giant. Officials cited the recent deposition of Richard Fade, a Microsoft executive, who told the states’ lawyers that computer makers particularly objected to Microsoft’s interpretation of the provision during recent contract talks.
Microsoft described those complaints as "a great deal of misunderstanding and wild charges that Microsoft would use the right to misappropriate the intellectual property of others."
Other changes to the settlement include:
Microsoft also argued that the trial judge’s role in approving the proposed settlement is "almost ministerial," and urged her to defer to the judgment of the Justice Department about whether the agreement "is the most appropriate mechanism to resolve the competing interests at stake." To do otherwise, the company argued, would risk constitutional questions over the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government.
Copyright ©2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
