|
Legal Issues
Newsletters
Information
Industry and Innovation
 |
How to contact the FIN:
Microsoft Freedom to Innovate Network
16625 Redmond Way
Ste. M-447
Redmond, WA
98052-9724
call us at
1-888-321-3999
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Week IN Court Reveals Competitor-Driven Case
This week in court, it became clear that one Microsoft competitor after another has attempted to use the antitrust lawsuit and the non-settling states' proposed sanctions to hobble Microsoft and win unfair competitive advantages.
Linux -- Michael Tiemann of Red Hat, a distributor of Linux, acknowledged that his company makes little investment in research and development and has not made an effort to create technology that would make Windows-compatible products work on Linux. Instead, Red Hat is looking toward the courts to force Microsoft to license its software for Linux's use.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000021726mar26.story
Novell -- Under cross-examination, Novell Chief Technology Officer Carl Ledbetter conceded that his company had played both sides of the legal fence to gain competitive advantages. Ledbetter told Microsoft that Novell would help the company fight antitrust charges -- even speak to senators -- if Microsoft provided increased support for Novell products. At the same time, Novell helped the government craft penalties against Microsoft that would help it.
Palm -- Though the leader in the handheld device market, Palm wants the courts to provide it a competitive advantage. In testimony, Palm's Chief Competitive Officer Michael Mace acknowledged that Palm met with representatives of the non-settling states and helped craft sanctions that would benefit Palm in a market that it already dominates.
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=search&StoryID=755086
None of these competitor complaints is even remotely related to the Appeals Court's rulings and the District Court's findings, which focused on PC operating systems -- not on Microsoft Office, networking software or handheld devices.
This week's proceedings once again show that the non-settling states' continuing lawsuit is competitor-driven, when the purpose of antitrust is to help consumers, promote innovation and foster fair free-market competition. As Microsoft's Attorney Dan K. Webb put it, "[T]he non-settling states' remedy designed to benefit our competitors without regard to the impact on consumers is wrong and it shouldn't happen."
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/mar02/03-18ntranscriptam.asp
The goals of antitrust law have already been met in the bipartisan agreement reached between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice and nine states.
Be Part of the Action
Thousands of FIN members are making a difference. At the Freedom to Innovate Network, you can keep up on the case and contact your public officials to let them know your views.
www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate.
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Click here to join the FIN!