Neowin.net

Thanks Keldyn for the heads up here. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly warned Microsoft Friday that it must comply with whatever ruling she imposes as punishment for the company's antitrust violations. The strong rebuke came on the final day of hearings to determine whether the judge will consider any of the strong remedies recommended by the so-called nine nonsettling states, which have refused to sign onto a proposed settlement Microsoft made with the US government and nine other states.

"I hear that Microsoft will make every effort to comply [with my ruling]," Kollar-Kotelly told Microsoft attorneys Friday. "I would expect that is going to be the case. These are the kinds of things that will come back to haunt you, because I will have a memory of all these statements."

Microsoft executives and lawyers have said repeatedly that the company would comply with whatever remedial decree the judge created. But the Judge's comments were no doubt inspired by Microsoft's violation of its 1995 consent decree with the federal government, in which it agreed to not bundle applications with Windows. The company then integrated Internet Explorer (IE) with Windows 95, an act that was later found to have been completed in order to illegally thwart competition from Netscape. This violation eventually led to a federal lawsuit and a sweeping guilty verdict in the company's historic antitrust trial.

News source: Wininformant

States attorney John Shenefield agreed that Kollar-Kotelly should watch the company carefully, because she will have a problem "forcing Microsoft to abide by a judgment it hates," he said. "If you have monopoly power and you're making a lot of money doing what you're doing, there's very little incentive to change the way you live. Hope springs eternal, but you're dealing with a monopolist."

Microsoft attorney Charles Rule said he was "offended" by those remarks, and told the judge several times that the company would comply fully with her ruling. "It is extremely inappropriate to assume that Microsoft is not going to respect the order of this court," he said. "There is no basis for that in this record, or outside in the world. My belief is that Microsoft will do everything it can to adhere to [Kollar-Kotelly's decision]. It is very sincere about that."

Unfortunately for the memory-challenged Rule, Microsoft has a tradition side-stepping the consent decrees, judicial decisions, and other legal agreements it makes, by simply following the carefully-worded language of the agreements exactly. The net effect, of course, is that Microsoft technically complies with its agreements, though it violates the spirit and intent of these agreements at the same time. Here are three examples:

1. As noted above, in its 1995 consent decree, Microsoft agreed not to bundle applications in Windows. Two years later, when the DOJ sued Microsoft because it had bundled IE with Windows, the company said that the two products were not bundled, but integrated. "The facts will show that we are in full compliance with the consent decree," Microsoft spokesperson Mike Murray said in October 1997. "The consent decree specifically says that we are able to integrate new features into the operating systems."

2. In December 1997, after Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson forced Microsoft to offer PC makers a Windows 95 version that didn't include IE, the company shipped a broken Windows version that wouldn't boot or run, a bizarre and stubborn decision that was apparently designed to show how integrated the two products were. No one was fooled: The DOJ described this decision as "an absolute mockery of [Jackson'] preliminary injunction," while Jackson, for his part, was enraged by Microsoft's actions.

3. In late November 2001, Microsoft signed a proposed settlement with the federal government, promising, among other things, that it would ease the terms of its Windows license for PC maker partners so that they could add third-party products and make other changes. However, within weeks, several of the largest PC makers complained that the Microsoft was using the agreement to subvert the PC maker's patents, raise prices, and extend Microsoft's dominance. Sony, Gateway, and Dell were among the companies complaining about the new licenses. "Dell cannot imagine that the intent of the [DOJ settlement] decree was an even greater degree of control by Microsoft," an email message from a Dell executive reads.

Also on Friday, Judge Kollar-Kotelly cast doubts that she would adopt a nonsettling states' plan to enforce the Microsoft remedies. In its proposed settlement with the federal government, Microsoft recommended a three-person compliance team, housed at the company's corporate headquarters, which would report to the DOJ and field complaints. But the states want Kollar-Kotelly to appoint a special master, who would report directly to the judge. Kollar-Kotelly called the request "odd" and "unusual," and implied that she was not open to this plan. "Obviously I have some concerns about [this plan], as to how it would work," she said. She also noted that antitrust enforcement should be handled by the DOJ, and not "abdicated" to a special master.

Moving forward, the two sides will meet again on June 19 to unveil their final arguments. Then, the judge will prepare her ruling, which she will likely deliver in July