Since Judge Jackson’s decision on 7th June that Microsoft should
be broken into two companies, Microsoft has argued that its appeal
should be heard by the US Court of Appeals, the forum for most
appeals from a District Court, while the government has argued that
the case should leap-frog the Court of Appeals and go to the
Supreme Court. A US law allows major antitrust cases to go direct
to the Supreme Court.
Judge Jackson’s reasons for bypassing the Appeals Court were
given as importance to the public and “administration of justice.”
The Supreme Court still has the final word on the matter. If it
decides to follow Judge Jackson’s reasoning, the final outcome of
the case will possibly come sooner than if the case goes first to
the Appeals Court, although this is still likely to take one or two
years.
Few were surprised by the Judge’s decision to put the case on
the fast-track procedure; however, the temporary relief from
sanctions was unexpected. Microsoft’s lawyers had described the
previously imminent imposition of the sanctions as a “nightmare
scenario.”
It had already been established by Judge Jackson that the break
up of the company would not take place until the appeals procedure
was exhausted; however, the District Court Judge had imposed other
remedies, including an obligation to “unbundle” certain software
programs from the Windows operating system by December and another
forcing it to share parts of the Windows code with other software
companies and computer makers by September.
