A federal judge on Wednesday said he planned no further proceedings on remedies in the Microsoft antitrust case, rejecting a company plea for more time to challenge government calls for a breakup of the software giant.
"I an not contemplating any further process," Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson told Microsoft attorney John Warden, who had made the request for more time during the afternoon session of a hearing in US District Court.
Microsoft in a written petition had asked for six months to mount its challenge to a recommendation from the Justice Department and 17 states that it be broken up into two companies, one to develop the Windows operating system and another specializing in computer software applications.
Jackson on Wednesday also asked the government to provide him with its definitive remedy plan, and Justice Department lawyer David Boies replied that the final version would be ready on Friday.
Microsoft then requested 48 hours to respond.
Judge Jackson on April 3 upheld government charges that the company had exploited the monopoly position it enjoys through its Windows operating system to stifle competition.
He also ruled that the company had illegally sought to dominate the market for Internet browsers.
In response, the department and a coalition of 17 states called on the court to dismantle Microsoft, a proposal the company denounced as unwarranted and extreme.
Microsoft offered instead to accept limitations on its business practices as a means of rectifying the violations found by the court.
Speaking to reporters outside the courtroom, Microsoft legal counsel William Neukom predicted that the company would prevail in the appeals process.
"In the appellate process we will be raising issues of procedure as well as the substance of the findings of fact and the conclusions of law as well as the appropriateness of the remedies.
"So we have several rounds to go and at the end of the process we anticipate that we will prevail and that our position will be vindicated, that this company's activities have been pro-competitive rather than anti-competitive." -- WASHINGTON (AFP)
© 2000 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)