Washington -- Here are questions and answers about how the judge in Microsoft Corp.'s antitrust will decide what remedy to impose to curb anti-competitive practices now that he has cited the software giant for legal violations.
Q. What is the next step in the proceedings?A. U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson gave the U.S. Justice Department and 19 states until today to file proposed remedies in the case. Jackson said he would prefer to receive one proposal but would let the states file an alternative if a majority of state attorneys general agree on a separate plan.
Q. What is being proposed?
A. The Justice Department has drafted a proposal embraced by most of the states to divide Microsoft into a company that makes the Windows operating system--which powers more than 95 percent of the world's personal computers--and another that makes software applications like the popular Microsoft Office suite of programs, according to people familiar with the plan.
Curbs on business practices would be imposed immediately and remain in effect until Microsoft's exhausts its appeals and the break-up could be implemented, the people said. Such rules would prevent Microsoft from charging computer makers different prices for Windows or from withholding codes needed by software developers to write programs that run on Windows, people said.
Q. Would Microsoft be able to object to the plan?
A. Microsoft will be given until May 10 to file its objections and to seek an extended hearing on the government's proposal. Company lawyers told Jackson they would want to subpoena documents, take depositions and present testimony if the government proposes a breakup.
Jackson has scheduled a hearing on remedies for May 24, though he is generally expected to grant Microsoft additional time to prepare its case. He would then take testimony, possibly for several days, from government and company witnesses. Jackson said he envisioned using the procedure followed in the 78-day trial, when written testimony was submitted before each witness was cross-examined by lawyers for the other side.
Q. When would Jackson decide what remedies to adopt?
A. He could decide as early as July. He told lawyers in the case that he is eager to send the case to the appeals courts so that both sides will know whether his decision that Microsoft illegally defended its monopoly will stand. Jackson is generally expected to grant Microsoft some time to prepare for a hearing.
Q. When can Microsoft appeal the case?
A. Microsoft cannot file an appeal until after Jackson imposes remedies. If he grants the government's presumed request, Jackson would likely impose immediate curbs on Microsoft's business practices but stay the break-up pending appeals. Company lawyers then would likely file an emergency appeal to prevent the enforcement of the interim curbs.
Q. Who would decide the appeals?
A. Ordinarily, appeals of Jackson's decisions would go to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Jackson, however, told lawyers for both sides that he would consider certifying the case for direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Under a 1974 law, the justices could agree to take direct appeal of an antitrust case that has great public interest. The high court, however, could decide it would prefer that the intermediate appeals court review the case.
Q. What happens if some of the states disagree with the Justice Department's proposal?
A. Some of the 19 states are expected to withhold their support for the government's proposal, which was primarily drafted by the Justice Department with changes made at the behest of leading lawyers for the states.
Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery has publicly questioned the wisdom of a break-up and isn't expected to support the government proposal. Other states may seek stronger remedies, such as a plan to split Microsoft into three parts: one that makes operating systems, another that makes software application programs and a third that runs Internet businesses such as Microsoft Network.
Because Jackson has stated a preference for a single proposal, it is unclear how much attention he would pay to dissents from any state or groups of states--particularly by from those like Ohio that didn't actively participate in the trial.