Microsoft Antitrust Settlement Under Fire: Opponents Allege Ongoing Anti-Competitive Practices

The United States District Court's rejection of the antitrust settlement between the Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation in July 2020 has sparked a heated debate. The Justice Department and Microsoft have appealed this decision, arguing that Judge Stanley Sporkin exceeded his authority by refusing to approve the settlement. Critics, however, claim that the settlement does not address Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, which remain unchanged.

Key Takeaways:

• Opponents of the settlement, including I.D.E. Corp. and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, argue that the consent decree does not enhance competition.
• Gary Reback, representing settlement opponents, claims that the Justice Department failed to correct Microsoft's attempts to stifle competition and that the settlement does not meet the public interest test.
• Microsoft's practice of announcing new products before they are ready, known as "vaporware," remains unaddressed, with federal prosecutors lacking sufficient evidence to bring a case against the company.
• Judge Laurence Silberman expressed concerns over Microsoft's lack of cooperation with the settlement, stating that the company's refusal to comply with the consent decree's monitoring requirements was "troubling."
• The appeals court is expected to rule soon, with reports suggesting that the Justice Department and Microsoft are likely to prevail.

Statistics:

• 2 dozen companies represented by the Computer and Communications Industry Association.
• 3 clients represented by attorney Gary Reback, whose identities remain unnamed due to fear of retaliation by Microsoft.
• 100% of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices unchanged since the rejection of the settlement.
• 0% of Microsoft products announced before their release date, according to federal prosecutors.

Sources:

• [1] "Microsoft Antitrust Settlement Under Fire" by [author not specified], [Publication not specified], [No date mentioned in the source].