The government argued that allowing the case to be first heard
by a lower appeals court first could “irreparably harm competition
in a vital and rapidly evolving sector of the national economy,”
arguing that the case should be resolved as soon as possible
because Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson had delayed the imposition of
penalties following his finding that the company had abused its
dominant position in the personal computer operating system market.
These penalties included breaking up Microsoft into two separate
companies and imposing strict controls on its business
practices.
The government estimates that taking the case directly to the
Supreme Court would shorten the resolution of the case by at least
one year.
In July, Microsoft made a request for a lower federal appeals
court to hear the next instalment of the case which has ruled in
its favour in the past. Microsoft argued that “the importance of
these cases will not lie in how quickly they are resolved but in
their long-term effects on consumers and this nation’s
economy.”
The appeals court has expressed its willingness to hear the
case, but the Supreme Court has the prerogative. Its decision is
expected next month.
