A long-awaited court ruling in the Microsoft antitrust case lifts a cloud over the software giant but will do little to satisfy the firm’s rivals, analysts said.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly approved, with only minor changes, the settlement between Microsoft and the US government to end the case, while rejecting pleas from several states for tougher sanctions.
The decision did make some minor changes in an effort to craft a compromise, although Microsoft’s bitterest rivals are unlikely to be mollified.
The settlement forces Microsoft to disclose some technical information and bars anti-competitive agreements on Microsoft products, but stops short of more draconian measures such as forcing the company to offer separate versions of the Windows operating system to make it easier to customise.
”It’s a very good ruling for Microsoft,” said Nicholas
Economides, a New York University economist who has followed the case.
”It has cleared most of the uncertainty around Microsoft.”
Economides said that even though an appeal by some of the non-settling states could still leave some lingering doubts, the judge’s approval goes a long way toward clearing the air.
But Microsoft rivals were angry and disappointed, saying the US administration had backed away from efforts to break up the monopoly and that the court had simply approved this.
Mike Pettit, president of the trade group ProComp, said he was ”extremely disappointed” by the ruling.
”This represents a systemic failure of the legal system, a failure to protect consumers, competition, and companies like Netscape whose innovations literally changed the world,” he said.
ProComp, which is backed by Microsoft rivals including AOL Time Warner and Sun Microsystems, said Microsoft ”has terrorised the industry for more than a decade” and said the administration of President George Bush ”surrendered to Microsoft”.
”The word has gone forth from the Bush administration to countless would-be dreamers and tinkerers: we will not protect you when monopolists like Microsoft set out to crush you,” Pettit said.
”It may take a decade to understand just how short sighted today’s decision is.”
He added, ”I shudder to think of what this portends for the industry, which is now almost totally regulated by the most powerful monopolist in history.”
Bob Lande, a University of Baltimore law professor, said the decision was ”virtually total victory” for Microsoft, and that the case is likely ”99% over” in the United States.
But he noted that Microsoft still faces a European Commission inquiry that could throw a wrench into company plans.
Rob Enderle of Giga Information Group called the ruling a ”clear win for Microsoft” but also maintained that it would be ”neutral or will increase the competitive environment”.
One key change is that enforcement of the plan will be monitored by a panel of outside Microsoft directors rather than an independent technical committee.
Although some analysts said this was favourable for Microsoft, others said it could strengthen enforcement.
Enderle said the change puts the judge firmly in charge of enforcement, adding, ”she’s personally going to make sure this thing works”.
AOL Time Warner general counsel Paul Cappuccio said the judge ”made a weak settlement stronger,” but added, ”The effort to constrain Microsoft’s monopoly has neither ended, nor been without result”.
Friday’s ruling ”created some additional protections for consumer choice and competition,” he said.
US Attorney General John Ashcroft said the court ruling with Microsoft ”provides certainty and stability to the vital computer sector of our economy and creates and environment where companies are encouraged to develop and deploy new middleware technologies with full confidence that their efforts will not be impeded by anticompetitive practices”. – Sapa-AFP