In its brief, the company says, “The entire proceeding was infected with error,” arguing that the government's lawsuit and the district court's rulings reflect a misunderstanding of antitrust laws. Microsoft’s arguments claim that long-held legal precedents support its position, and argue that the District Court's judgement would stifle innovation and harm, not help, competition.
“Even accepting the district court’s findings of fact, Microsoft must win on liability because there is no exclusion of competing products from consumers,” said the company in its appeal brief.
Microsoft goes on to explain that the district court, “erroneously held that Microsoft’s design of Windows to include Web browsing software constituted [a violation]. First, Windows and IE are not ‘separate products’ under this Court’s standard because there are significant benefits to the integrated design of Windows that cannot be duplicated by combining an operating system with a standalone Web browser like Navigator.”
The brief disputes the finding that Microsoft maintained a PC operating system monopoly:
“First, Microsoft cannot control prices or exclude competition, and thus does not possess monopoly power in a properly defined market. Second, Microsoft did not engage in anti-competitive conduct because it did not foreclose Navigator or Java from any marketplace.”
The appeal also criticises the conduct of the district court judge, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson: “By repeatedly commenting on the merits of the case in the press, the district judge has cast himself in the public’s eye as a participant in the controversy, thereby compromising the appearance of impartiality, if not demonstrating actual bias against Microsoft... The district judge’s violations of the Code of Conduct are emblematic of the manner in which he conducted the entire case — employing improper procedures and changing the rules of the game, always to Microsoft’s detriment.”
The response from the Justice Department is expected by 12th January 2001.