WASHINGTON, D.C. – Microsoft today filed a reply brief in further support of
its motion urging U.S. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson to reject the
government’s proposal to break up the company, arguing that the government’s
current proposal contradicts the position it took in another case five years
ago.
According to Microsoft legal council the government has already admitted
that the breakup of Microsoft would be “dangerous to the economy’s welfare”
and “against the public interest.”
In the earlier case, a Tunney Act proceeding related to a 1994 consent
decree, various third parties known as amici curiae, or “friends of the
court,” were urging the Court to reject the consent decree and require
Microsoft to divest its applications business, essentially the same relief
the government is seeking now. In response, the government stated that “the
law would not permit the sweeping remedies that the amici suggest” and that
“remedies such as dismembering Microsoft” would “act against the public
interest.”
“The government’s current rhetoric stands in stark contrast to its position
on breakup during the Tunney Act proceeding in 1994 and 1995, when it
publicly stated that breaking up Microsoft would cause significant harm to
consumers, the marketplace and the software industry,” said Microsoft
spokesperson Jim Cullinan.
