• PC World
• » Tech Industry

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Government attorneys parried the bulk of questions from court justices in the second day of Microsoft's appeal of its antitrust verdict, while the software vendor's attorneys attacked what they contend is an excessive remedy: divestiture.

The seven-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia concluded Tuesday's session after hearing arguments from both two sides about post-trial public statements made by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who heard the original case. Microsoft contends Jackson's criticism indicates the judge was biased.

Overall, the appeals court judges asked many more questions of the government than of the Microsoft attorneys. Some observers interpret this as indicating the appellate court is leaning toward remanding at least portions of the case back to the district court.

Questioning initially focused on Microsoft's attempted monopolization of the browser market, then moved to a discussion about the remedy. Jackson's order follows the government's request that Microsoft be split into two companies, one making applications and the other, operating system. In the debate over Jackson's public statements, several judges expressed concern that Jackson violated judicial conduct rules and left an appearance of bias.

Microsoft attorney Richard Urowsky called Jackson's statements derogatory and said quotes attributed to the judge, including the statement, "I'm not a great fan of integration," show bias, indicating Jackson should have recused himself.

Jackson's Comments Dissected

The government built its case on Microsoft's integration of Internet Explorer with its Windows operating system. Attorneys for the Justice Department say the combination of the two was illegal "tying" under U.S. antitrust law, as Microsoft sought to preserve its monopoly in desktop operating systems. Jackson ultimately agreed with the government, issuing his conclusions of law in April, which said Microsoft was guilty of multiple violations of antitrust law.

Urowsky told the appellate judges that Jackson gave interviews to numerous reporters about the nature of the case and even walked one reporter step by step through the journal he kept during the trial.

"These extensive comments about the case while it was pending are a clear violation...of the rules of judicial conduct," Urowsky said.

Among the three judges that sharply questioned government attorney John Roberts about Jackson's conduct, Chief Justice Harry Edwards was most emphatic.

"The system would be a sham if all judges went around doing this," Edwards said. "We don't discuss ongoing cases with our friends. This is not the way we operate."

• See more like this:
• Microsoft,
• antitrust,
• DOJ,
• court,
• appeal