and convoluted process" that could extend the proceedings well into 2002 or "substantially later," the government wrote. Microsoft's insistence that Judge Kollar-Kotelly determine the scope of the remedy before evidentiary hearings "has it exactly backwards" and would "simply invite unnecessary delay."
Moreover, there is little need for extensive new evidence in the case, the government said. What need there is can be focused on Microsoft's new Windows XP operating system, on how the market has changed since Judge Jackson's verdict last year, and on additional remedies that may be needed since the department isn't pursuing a breakup.
But Microsoft argued that the Justice Department's starting point for determining a remedy in the case overreaches because it is based on conduct remedies imposed by Judge Jackson. The Appeals Court noted in its opinion that it had "drastically altered the scope of Microsoft's liability" in its review of Judge Jackson's verdict as it ordered a new court to find the appropriate remedy, Microsoft noted.
Judge Jackson's conduct remedies "are every bit as radical as the now-discarded proposal to break up the company," especially if more provisions are added after a review of Windows XP and other matters. Microsoft said the conduct remedies cover products "that were barely mentioned at trial."
Those products include Windows CE, used on hand-held devices and Windows 2000 Server, an operating system for corporate network computers. But the theory of the case, Microsoft said, was built on allegations that Microsoft tried to blunt competition to Windows from Navigator and Sun Microsystems Inc.'s (SUNW) Java software, seen as capable of providing a competing operating platform.
Such a theory would put products for network servers and hand-held devices off-limits. Requirements in Judge Jackson's remedy that Microsoft disclose to computer makers source code for all Microsoft operating systems "would result in the wholesale taking of some of the world's most valuable intellectual property to the detriment of the entire PC industry," the company said.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly has scheduled a conference next Friday at 9:30 a.m. to discuss the issues raised by both sides regarding the schedule and direction of the case. It's not clear whether she will rule from the bench or issue a decision later.
