Netscape Files Antitrust Complaint Against Microsoft, January 22, 2002

Court Rejects Proposed Settlement of Private Class Actions, January 11, 2002

The MDL plaintiffs and Microsoft have filed a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement agreement into which they have entered. I have concluded, as a procedural matter, that I cannot presently determine the adequacy of the proposed settlement because the record has not been sufficiently developed on the question of the underlying value of the class claims. I have also concluded, as a substantive matter, that the record as it now exists demonstrates that the charitable foundation contemplated by the agreement is not sufficiently funded both to fulfill the eleemosynary purposes justifying a cy pres remedy and to assure that effectuation of the agreement would not have anti-competitive effects. Therefore, I will deny the motion for preliminary approval.

Court Rejects Microsoft's Request for More Time on States' Challenge, January 7, 2002

Microsoft Responds to Dissenting States' Proposal, December 12, 2001

• Statement of Rick Rule, Counsel for Microsoft
• Statement of Charles James, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division
• Statement of Matthew Szulik, Red Hat
• Statement of Lawrence Lessig, Professor, Stanford Law School

Dissenting States Propose Harsher Remedy, December 7, 2001

Microsoft offers Settlement with Private Plaintiffs, November 19, 2001

Justice Department Files Competitive Impact Statement, November 15, 2001

Justice Department and Nine States Settle with Microsoft, November 6, 2001

Justice Department and Microsoft to Present Settlment Proposal to Judge, November 2, 2001

The Justice Department and Microsoft filed a proposed final judgment with District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly Friday. The settlment proposes a five-year consent decree forcing Microsoft to disclose middleware programming interfaces (APIs), permit computer manufacturers to substitute non-Microsoft middleware products, and license software to OEMs on uniform, non-exclusive terms. The states have not yet endorsed the proposal, and could continue to pursue the suit or challenge the settlment under the Tunney Act.

Court Names New Mediator, October 12, 2001

Supreme Court Denies Review, October 9, 2001

U.S. and Microsoft file Joint Status Report, Sept. 20, 2001

Microsoft Files Reply Brief in Support of Certiorari, Sept. 11, 2001

Government Drops Request for Breakup and Tying Claim, September 6, 2001

From the Justice Department Press Release: The Department of Justice's Antitrust Division today advised Microsoft that it will not seek a break-up of the company in remand proceedings before the U.S. District Court. It also informed the company that it does not intend to pursue further proceedings on the tying count of the original complaint. The Department said it is taking these steps in an effort to obtain prompt, effective and certain relief for consumers.

Justice Department Asks Supreme Court Not to Take Case, August 31, 2001

New District Judge Assigned to Microsoft Case

Appeals Court Denies Stay of Mandate, Will Return Case to District Court August 24 (Order, 8/17/01)

Microsoft Appeals to Supreme Court (8/7/01)

Question Presented:
The district judge engaged in secret discussions with select reporters about the merits of this case beginning no later than September 1999 and continuing over the succeeding eight months. (A119-20) During that period, the district judge entered his findings of fact, followed by his conclusions of law, and then a remedial decree. (A120) The court of appeals held that (i) the district judge?s course of conduct flagrantly violated 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (A118-19) and (ii) the district judge would have been immediately disqualified had he not concealed his misconduct by requiring the reporters to "embargo" their stories until after entry of judgment (A128). The court nevertheless disqualified the district judge "retroactive only to the imposition of the remedy" (A136), some eight months after the earliest known violation.

The question presented for review is:
Whether the court of appeals erred in not disqualifying the district judge as of the date of his earliest known violation of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and the Code for Conduct of United States Judges, thus requiring that his findings of fact and conclusions of law be vacated.

Appeals Court Denies Rehearing and Immediate Mandate

Kodak Joins Chorus of Windows XP Critics, (8/1/01)
Kodak charges Microsoft with blocking Kodak camera software in its new OS.

Government Accepts Appellate Ruling, July 13, 2001

Appeals Court Vacates Microsoft Breakup, June 28, 2001

The Court's per curiam opinion vacated the trial court's final judgment on remedy and remanded to a different trial judge, sternly rebuking Judge Jackson for ex parte cotacts during and after the trial. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of monopoly maintenance in the operating system market, reversed on attempted monopolization of the browser market, and remanded on unlawful tying of the browser to the operating system.

Opinion, June 28, 2001 HTML or PDF

News links and analysis of the decision, June 29, 2001

Competitors Charge Microsoft with New Anticompetitive Conduct in Windows XP

Group Says Microsoft's XP Raises Antitrust Anew , April 26, 2001
ProComp's Whitepaper argues that Microsoft is tying its Media Player 8 to Windows XP in much the same way as it tied the browser to Windows 95.

Earlier news from the case archived here.

Break it up (June 7, 2000):