WASHINGTON, Nov 5: The anti-trust settlement between the US government and Microsoft was thrown into doubt Monday as at least one state said it would refuse to sign onto the deal.

Beth Stone, a spokeswoman for Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, said the northeast state was not prepared to accept the terms negotiated last week between the software giant and the US Justice Department.

“At this point we’re not signing on,” Stone told AFP.

Asked if the state was likely to change its position before a court hearing Tuesday, she said, “Most likely not.”

A total of 18 states are co-plaintiffs in the 3-1/2-year-old antitrust case pending in court against Microsoft, which was found guilty of abusing its Windows operating system monopoly.

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

The proposed settlement with the federal government calls for Microsoft to disclose some technical information to rivals and bars exclusive agreements for Microsoft products.

The agreement stipulates Microsoft must create uniform licensing terms for its software and prevents the company from retaliating against computer makers that use rival products. It also requires Microsoft to allow software from rivals to operate within Windows operating systems.

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

But some states have made positive comments about the deal.

Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan said Friday he was “pleased that the Microsoft case appears headed for resolution” and that he was “inclined to sign on to the settlement agreement because the terms appear to achieve the overall objectives of our lawsuit.” But he said was withholding final judgment until the his staff could review the agreement.

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 Wall Street Journal said several states were opposed to the deal but that it was uncertain whether the states would act together if efforts to work through a court-appointed mediator fail.

Bill Lockyer, the California attorney general, was quoted as saying, “I hope we can settle this case, but we’re still prepared to litigate if we have to.”

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

Critics of the proposed settlement said it would be difficult to enforce many aspects of it with a three-member technical panel.

“It’s shocking,” said Dane Hayter, an attorney in San Francisco, who investigated the case while at the Department of Justice, who noted that the technical panel may only make recommendations and is legally barred from talking to anyone else about its findings.

“It leaves the US ability and commitment to enforcement of the decree open to question.”

Microsoft could face months of further litigation if the states continue to pursue the case on their own.

“This agreement does not spell the end of Microsoft’s problems,” said Richard Levin, a Dallas antitrust law expert. “Microsoft should not carelessly dismiss the state’s concerns. It might be wise for Microsoft to make additional concessions to get these attorneys general on board.” —AFP