Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Microsoft, Feds Defend Settlement Of Antitrust Charges Three-Judge Panel Could Wait Weeks To Make Decision

Associated Press

Microsoft Corp. and the Justice Department seemed pleased with the hearing they got Monday on a judge’s refusal to approve their antitrust settlement.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reviewing the proposed settlement. The court heard 90 minutes of oral arguments and may take several weeks to reach a decision.

The settlement, reached last July after a four-year government investigation, would require Microsoft to end a discounting practice that effectively reduced competition in selling operating software.

In addition to studying the agreement, the appeals court decision is likely to further define the scope of antitrust review a federal judge has under the Tunney Act, a law widely applied in antitrust cases.

U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin, in rejecting the settlement Feb. 14, said he could not rule it met the Tunney Act’s definition of being in the public interest because he had insufficient information from the company and Justice Department.

During his review, Sporkin raised questions about Microsoft practices that he had read about in a book. He also allowed competitors and a trade group to present objections after the normal Tunney Act review expired.

In the appeal, the Justice Department said Sporkin’s questioning broadened the case beyond what its prosecutors had decided. It said the judge could not force it to bring a case nor disclose the complaints about Microsoft that the government considered but did not pursue.

“We might still be in the middle of an investigation,” Justice Department attorney Joel Klein said during the hearing.

While questioning another attorney who opposed the settlement, the chief judge of the panel, Harry Edwards, noted law formed by previous cases has limited the right of a judge to ferret out complaints.

Afterward, Microsoft’s chief counsel, William Neukom, seemed encouraged by the hearing. “The questions and arguments accentuated the fact … that the review under the Tunney Act was a quite limited review,” he said.