November 4, 2001	Sunday	Shaba’an 17, 1422

WASHINGTON, Nov 3: An antitrust settlement between the US government and Microsoft announced on Friday after a three-and-a-half-year legal battle would restrict some business practices for the software giant, but states in the case refused to immediately sign on.

Microsoft critics meanwhile pressed for a rejection of the deal, saying it was at best a slap on the wrist for software giant.

As the proposal was filed in US District Court, the 18 states who are co-plaintiffs in the case said they wanted more time to consider their position.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly gave them until Tuesday to negotiate with the US authorities and Microsoft; the judge could order more hearings on a remedy if she or the states reject the deal.

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, co-ordinator of the case for the states, said the 18 attorneys general declined to join the agreement because “we believe that it is imperative that we fully assess the specific language of the agreement.”

“We will work very hard over the weekend and into Tuesday,” Miller said, but cautioned: “A settlement is always going to be in the grey area.”

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said the draft deal “represents an enormous step forward” but “doesn’t give us everything”.

“The states have the capacity to pursue this if necessary,” Spitzer warned.

The proposed settlement calls for Microsoft — found guilty last year of abusing its monopoly in the market for operating software — to disclose some technical information to rivals and bars exclusive agreements for Microsoft products.

US Attorney General John Ashcroft called the agreement “a strong, historic settlement... that will put an end to Microsoft’s unlawful conduct and bring effective relief to the marketplace.”

Charles James, US assistant attorney general for antitrust, said he hoped the states would join the agreement “because it’s very clear that this relief is in the public interest.”

Microsoft company chairman Bill Gates said the deal was a reasonable way to end the case.

“The settlement is fair and reasonable and, most important, is in the best interests of consumers and the economy,” Gates said.

But Microsoft critics were far from pleased.

James Love, director of The Consumer Project on Technology, which tracks consumer rights in technology markets, said, “It doesn’t punish Microsoft for past behaviour, it just tells them to quit doing what they shouldn’t have been doing, which made the company a lot of money and gave it more dominance than it should’ve had.”

Scott McNealy, chief executive of rival firm Sun Microsystems, said, “All we have taught Microsoft is how not to get their fingers caught in smoking guns.”

McNealy said that the market economy “doesn’t work if you have a monopolist” and urged the government to enforce a settlement that would “eliminate tying, bundling and leveraging” by Microsoft.

A US appeals court in June upheld a lower court finding from last year that Microsoft acted as an illegal monopoly, but overturned an order the company should be broken up.

On September 6, the US government abandoned its demand for a breakup of the software maker, saying it hoped to speed up a resolution of the case.

Microsoft faces a separate probe in the European Union into whether it designed its new Windows XP system so it would not operate with other companies’ software for items such as media players for audio and video.

But chief executive Steve Ballmer said he hoped a settlement could be negotiated in that case too — to avert fines that could be as much as 2.5 billion dollars.—AFP