Thanks neo1980 for posting this story in our forum yesterday ;) (I didn't see it)
The state attorneys general still pursuing the antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. have asked a federal judge to force the company to show them the inner workings of the Windows operating system.
In a bid to pry open one of the world's most valuable pieces of intellectual property, the states argued they need to see the Windows source code in order to verify Microsoft's claim that it is not technically feasible for the company to offer a stripped-down version of the operating system.
"Microsoft cannot base its defense on the design of its source code and simultaneously deny the litigating states the opportunity to test those arguments by interrogating the code," the states said in their filing.
The motion was filed with U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on Tuesday and made available on Wednesday.
As part of their proposed sanctions against Microsoft, the states have told Kollar-Kotelly that she should order the company to offer a stripped-down version of Windows, without any additional features such as its Internet Explorer browser.
In demanding to see the Windows source code, the states said the legal questions in the case "cannot be fairly resolved when the very subject matter in dispute is hidden from all but Microsoft's own employees."
Andrew Gavil, a professor of antitrust law at Howard University, said Microsoft could have a hard time refuting that argument.
"This is the equivalent of demanding of Coke that they turn over the formula," Gavil said. "This is exactly what Microsoft wanted to avoid."
News source: Reuters - States Request Microsoft Windows Code
The state attorneys general still pursuing the antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. have asked a federal judge to force the company to show them the inner workings of the Windows operating system.
In a bid to pry open one of the world's most valuable pieces of intellectual property, the states argued they need to see the Windows source code in order to verify Microsoft's claim that it is not technically feasible for the company to offer a stripped-down version of the operating system.
"Microsoft cannot base its defense on the design of its source code and simultaneously deny the litigating states the opportunity to test those arguments by interrogating the code," the states said in their filing.
The motion was filed with U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on Tuesday and made available on Wednesday.
As part of their proposed sanctions against Microsoft, the states have told Kollar-Kotelly that she should order the company to offer a stripped-down version of Windows, without any additional features such as its Internet Explorer browser.
In demanding to see the Windows source code, the states said the legal questions in the case "cannot be fairly resolved when the very subject matter in dispute is hidden from all but Microsoft's own employees."
Andrew Gavil, a professor of antitrust law at Howard University, said Microsoft could have a hard time refuting that argument.
"This is the equivalent of demanding of Coke that they turn over the formula," Gavil said. "This is exactly what Microsoft wanted to avoid."
News source: Reuters - States Request Microsoft Windows Code
In Tuesday's motion, the states also asked the judge to appoint a technical expert to help provide "impartial opinions on the complex, highly technical issues raised by the parties."
Microsoft has rejected both requests when approached directly by the states.
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said the company had proved during the trial that it is impossible to remove software features from Windows without damaging the operating system.
"They're trying to relitigate issues that they did not prevail upon in the court of appeals," Desler said. "And, in doing so, they're trying to complicate this case unnecessarily."
Desler said state attorneys general are working "hand-in-hand" with Microsoft competitors, who "will stop at nothing to get access to our intellectual property."
Microsoft reached a deal with Justice in November to settle the long-running case. Nine of the 18 states in the lawsuit agreed to sign on to the deal, but nine others are pressing ahead and asking the judge to impose stricter sanctions.
During the trial, the government accused Microsoft of using its Windows monopoly to snuff out competitors who make add-on "middleware" products, such as Netscape Communications Corp.'s Navigator browser.
In a landmark ruling on the case in June, a federal appeals court dismissed parts of the government's case, but upheld a lower court's conclusion that Microsoft had used illegal tactics to maintain the Windows monopoly.
Among the illegal tactics cited by the court was the "commingling" of Windows source code with add-on middleware.
The dissenting states -- including California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut -- say the availability of a stripped-down browser, without additional features, would help restore competition to the software business.
Later in the day, lawyers for the two sides said in a joint legal filing that they cannot agree on how much time each should have to bring witnesses before the judge.
The dissenting states want each side to be limited to 20 witnesses and no more than 85 hours of testimony. They said that would amount to about three weeks of courtroom time.
Microsoft proposed that each side be allowed up to 150 hours worth of testimony, nearly double the states' proposal.
The states have in the past accused Microsoft of using legal maneuvers to drag out the proceedings and delay the outcome of the case.
But Desler said Microsoft is not stalling.
"We'd like nothing better than a short process. However, given the breadth of the states proposals, and their potential harm on industry and consumers our recommendations on time and witnesses are entirely appropriate."
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.