In its brief, the company says, “The entire proceeding was
infected with error,” arguing that the government's lawsuit and the
district court's rulings reflect a misunderstanding of antitrust
laws. Microsoft’s arguments claim that long-held legal precedents
support its position, and argue that the District Court's judgement
would stifle innovation and harm, not help, competition.
“Even accepting the district court’s findings of fact, Microsoft
must win on liability because there is no exclusion of competing
products from consumers,” said the company in its appeal brief.
Microsoft goes on to explain that the district court,
“erroneously held that Microsoft’s design of Windows to include Web
browsing software constituted [a violation]. First, Windows and IE
are not ‘separate products’ under this Court’s standard because
there are significant benefits to the integrated design of Windows
that cannot be duplicated by combining an operating system with a
standalone Web browser like Navigator.”
The brief disputes the finding that Microsoft maintained a PC
operating system monopoly:
“First, Microsoft cannot control prices or
exclude competition, and thus does not possess monopoly power in a
properly defined market. Second, Microsoft did not engage in
anti-competitive conduct because it did not foreclose Navigator or
Java from any marketplace.”
The appeal also criticises the conduct of the district court
judge, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson: “By repeatedly commenting on
the merits of the case in the press, the district judge has cast
himself in the public’s eye as a participant in the controversy,
thereby compromising the appearance of impartiality, if not
demonstrating actual bias against Microsoft... The district judge’s
violations of the Code of Conduct are emblematic of the manner in
which he conducted the entire case — employing improper procedures
and changing the rules of the game, always to Microsoft’s
detriment.”
The response from the Justice Department is expected by 12th
January 2001.
