http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000620/ts/microsoft_dc.html

Tuesday June 20 6:21 PM ET

By David Lawsky

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The judge in the Microsoft antitrust case sent the company's appeal directly to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, and suspended stringent business restrictions of the software giant he had ordered to take effect in September.

If the Supreme Court decides to keep the case, a resolution of the landmark trial could come as soon as next year, as the government has urged.

Alternatively, the high court could send it to the U.S. Court of Appeals to hear first, which Microsoft supports.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered the break-up of the company June 7 to prevent future antitrust violations, but suspended the split until all appeals were finished.

Jackson also ordered temporary business restrictions that were to take effect on Sept. 5. In his ruling on Tuesday Jackson reversed himself on the conduct remedies and said they were suspended ``until the appeal is decided'' by the Supreme Court, or until another appeals court reinstates them.

The conduct remedies would have required Microsoft to give software developers greater access to the code behind its Windows personal computer operating system. It would also have had to treat large computer makers equally and allow them to customize how Windows appears on their screens.

``The decision to certify the case for potential direct appeal to the Supreme Court was widely expected, but we're very pleased the court has stayed the judgement pending appeal,'' said a Microsoft spokesman, Mark Murray.

``This will allow our appeal to go forward promptly without unnecessary disruption to consumers or the high-tech industry,'' he said in a telephone conversation. ``We look forward to presenting our appeal and getting a prompt resolution of the case.''

Murray said he was confident Microsoft would win on appeal. The company has already beaten the Justice Department once in the appeals court, in 1998, getting a reversal of a Jackson decision in an earlier skirmish with the government.

The Justice Department, too, expressed satisfaction with the judge's decision and looked to the Supreme Court as its preferred venue.

``This decision affirms the Department's position that a quick and effective remedy is necessary to resolve this significant case,'' the government said in a statement.

It said the decision to suspend any remedy makes the prompt resolution by the Supreme Court more urgent.

``Given the District Court's decision to stay the remedy during the appeal process, the direct appeal to the Supreme Court is of particular importance to the national interest,'' the statement said.

Judges may send appeals from antitrust cases brought by the government directly to the Supreme Court when they find they are ``of general public importance in the administration of justice,'' according to the law.

``The sooner a meaningful remedy is in place, the better it will be for consumers and the marketplace by providing increased innovation, more choices and better products,'' the Justice Department said.

Jackson ruled in his landmark decision that Microsoft violated the nation's antitrust laws by using its monopoly power in personal computer operating systems to intimidate customers into using its products instead of those of rivals.

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 20, 2000

Answers

Now, of course, the question everyone in the legal community wants to see answered is whether the Supremes will take the case.

Unlike the Court of Appeals, appeal to the Supreme Court is discretionary, not mandatory. This means that the Supremes can take this case, or just say no way and send it back to the Court of Appeals for review in the normal course of things.

How this will turn out -- all us legal eagles want to know (and are taking bets). The statute allowing direct appeal to the Supremes upon certification by a trial court judge is relatively new and untried. Do the Supremes wish to encourage this type of behavior? Who knows. Those betting on the no side say the Supremes will not want to encourage this type of appeal, and will want to have the appellate court develop the arguments pro and con. Those betting on the yes side say this is the biggest antitrust case in years; if not now, when.

I would not even presume to guess the outcome. But, for whatever it is worth, if I had to bet, Id bet they dont take it.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), June 20, 2000.