Multimedia Document Retrieval

PBS's Newshour
Broadcast 04/04/2000, Story 1

The federal antitrust case against microsoft was led by assistant attorney general joined joel klein who joins us now welcome to the program could it be nice to be here one sure you read that uh a forty three page ruling very closely what's your reaction

I think it's a very strong and very important not only for what it says about microsofts

And i competitive behavior

The significant pervasive walters for us


But microsoft engaged in the harm competitors and ultimately harm the american public are denying them innovation but even as

Lee ray i think

To rely more and antitrust enforcement a lot of people blast will anti trust laws they roll hundred years old what's the relevance for the current through the information new economy

And i think this court should move through very careful fact finding and very sophisticated legal analysis but antitrust enforcement is going to be important in the information age to deal with exactly the kinds of issues that we saw manifested here in the microsoft case to on many fronts i think this truly is an important victory for america's consumers and for more forceful

For it's all part the company said it would continue to innovate hope to prevail on appeal and said that in its conclusion all the things that you say war crimes have actually provided the consumer with convenience low prices and an industry standard

Well that the company can say that

The court heard evidence for seventy eight days much of it coming from microsoft's own documents documents that seriously compete on the merits were going to lose in the browser war documents and testimony their own witness saying we didn't want to put our browser

Right next to netscape's browser companies we knew we couldn't win

That way when you have excuses

Which leads me make one thing clear it

I see my personal should handle fruit or encourage more crucial to the nursery nothing new in what this case is about women the way that remark resource innovation on the other hand we want to make sure microsoft as a nuisance monopoly power

To prevent others from innovating the american way is to give a chance to the new want to pander to the new person with a new product to get that product marketing to the public a choice and they look the best product when we don't have a horse in that race i'm sorry the marquis all sources well we just integral want to do with the simple way you know they signed a consent decree with the department justice in nineteen ninety four and they said

It was nine a

I'll go forward and constructive way and then they turn around and engage in all of the

Anti competitive behavior

I would hold microsoft join me in the following two principles it should you know very you to play by the rules which is on the anti trust laws and that should give everybody else the same opportunity to innovate not to squelch their products through bolting two products together or exclusionary agreements for predatory practices all of which is carefully documented not just about forty three page opinion yesterday spoke to the two hundred plus page findings of fact

Forrest federal courts were going to be over

What would you call the bolstering of two products together the bundling of the web browser with the operating system of court of appeals has already ruled that it finds nothing anti competitive nothing illegal about that shouldn't that gives microsoft hard on appeal

I don't think so i think the court of appeals case was a very different context the court of appeals

To settle seoul said of course despite all look very different test we look at the facts in the court of appeals a consent decree case this is the anti trust laws now that's what the trial was what she can do this i told you wanted to say i really urge people to go on the world wide web and pulled down these findings of fact and conclusions law so you don't have to listen to sound bites and spend

Because the trial was all about whether there was some meaningful product integration for what the researchers found two products will pull together you know we all know if you have a monopoly

In windows and then you open up the product on there that's going to get mass distribution for you that's what the government says and that was microsoft's evidence that said we have got to hold leverage or windows monopoly in order when the browser war that's what trials are about and that's why they're so critical of the american people to really carefully review the court's findings and conclusions i think that really illuminating and informative

Now in a structural sense of who has the next move is it up to a judge thomas penfield jackson to propose remedies war for your side the winning side in this case to suggest to the court what those might be similar to a criminal

Sure there is a general matter what would happen or expect to happen here as well the court will set a schedule and then we will propose so appropriate remedies close to uh to address the issues in the case and that of course microsoft will be given an opportunity but react to those remedies and the court would ultimately make a determination of what's appropriate in these circumstances

Could you ask for some form of immediate relief that is some sort of penalty that would be imposed even as microsoft goes through it to its next step in appeal

But that's certainly an option that we have under consideration no final decision has been made with respect to that which you could cheat control memories as well as long term limits depending on the facts in the summer

That suggests what did your experts advise you uh as this case was willing to its conclusion about what possible women either made

Well we've got some rumors to rest a quick trip people

Well consultants of people with a broad range of technological economic an industry based information

And they've been looking at a variety of proposals the most important thing here is to get a remedy that make sure that yesterday's problems that the whole on the microsoft did in the market yesterday is the repeated tomorrow microsoft used to wide range of anti competitive devices not just this balkan of products exclusionary contracts refusing to disclose technological information to competitors

We want to make sure going forward

That those practices are not repeated and that innovation and competition for failure on the stand firm on a misunderstanding that somehow we're fighting yesterday's war and this is a dynamic market that dynamism of the software market in in particular

The desktop computing market has been very flat because of microsoft's monopoly they have had a monopoly for as far back as people can remember windows on the desktop and they're gonna have to force for ford called the use of monopoly

It's absolutely critical to the


Interface designed by Ben Timms and Rich Wareham 1999