Microsoft Judge Won't Limit Evidence
A federal judge refused Thursday to limit the scope of evidence that will be presented at the trial on the massive antitrust suit against Microsoft Corp.
The software giant (MSFT) wanted U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson to throw out evidence about Microsoft's business dealings with Intel Corp. (INTC), Apple Computer Corp. (AAPL) and RealNetworks (RNWK).
Jackson told lawyers for both sides that he wouldn't limit the evidence at this point, but would rule on the relevance of the evidence when it was presented at the trial, which is scheduled to begin Oct. 15.Microsoft lawyer John Warden argued that new evidence has nothing to do with the core issues in the federal and state antitrust case filed on May 18.
"We have a limited amount of time left and a lot of work to do, and it would be a lot better for everyone if we limited the matters before the court and didn't spend a lot of time chasing down what may turn out to be ghosts," Warden said.
A Microsoft spokesman said the company's preparations are still on track, but said it would reserve the right to ask for a delay of the trial if necessary to rebut the new evidence.
David Boies, an attorney for the Justice Department, told Jackson that the evidence shows Microsoft's monopoly power and is therefore admissible under federal court rules about evidence of "other acts" that may show intent, motive or habit.
"Only a company that has market power can do what they did," Boies told reporters outside the courtroom.
The antitrust case charges Microsoft with maintaining and extending its monopoly in the personal computer operating systems market by trying to monopolize the market for Internet browsing software and Internet content.
Late last month, the government said it would produce evidence that Microsoft pressured Intel to give up on development of its own Internet software, pressured Apple to stop marketing its QuickTime software for Windows and pressured RealNetworks to reduce its development of streaming media software.
"They aren't browsers," Microoft's Warden said of the other companies' products, and therefore have nothing to do with the government's "narrow and focused" complaint.
"They've always claimed it's not a 'bigness is badness' complaint," Microsoft legal adviser Charles "Rick" Rule told reporters later.
Rule, who headed the antitrust division a decade ago, said Jackson made it clear he would try the case that was filed, not one about streaming video or MS-DOS.
Ed Black, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a group critical of Microsoft, said the company is clearly worried about the Intel, Apple and RealNetworks evidence.
Jonathan Zuck, executive director of the pro-Microsoft Association for Competitive Technology, said the government's tactics threaten to derail Jackson's desires for a speedy trial. "The industry doesn't need another IBM case," he said.
Written By Rex Nutting, Washington bureau chief, CBS MarketWatch