U.S. v. Microsoft Filings, Feb. 27, 2002

From the court's electronic docket:
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1-98-01232-CKK

02/27/2002 81 RESPONSE of the United States to Public Comments on the Revised Proposed Final Judgment by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A - Comments Cited in the Response)(Hesse, Renata) (Entered: 02/27/2002)

02/27/2002 82 Proposed MOTION for Settlement Memorandum of the United States in Support of Entry of the Proposed Final Judgment by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A - Comparison of Court of Appeals' Findings on Liability to Provisions of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment# 2 Appendix B - U.S. v. Microsoft Newspaper Notice# 3 Appendix C - Declaration of David S. Sibley)(Hesse, Renata) (Entered: 02/27/2002)

02/27/2002 83 STIPULATION by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Second Revised Proposed Final Judgment)(Hesse, Renata) (Entered: 02/27/2002)

02/27/2002 84 Amended MOTION for Settlement United States' Memorandum Regarding Modifications Contained in Second Revised Proposed Final Judgment by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Second Revised Proposed Final Judgment Red-Lined Version)(Hesse, Renata) (Entered: 02/27/2002)

02/27/2002 85 RESPONSE to Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Memorandum in Support of the Second Revised Proposed Final Judgment filed by MICROSOFT CORPORATION. (Warden, John) (Entered: 02/27/2002)

News Links and Summaries from Michael Geist's BNA Internet Internet Law News, March 1, 2002

MICROSOFT, ONE - MS / DOJ TWEAK THEIR SETTLEMENT

Microsoft and the Department of Justice have announced several changes to their antitrust settlement in response to criticism that the deal was riddled with legal loopholes. The most significant change comes from the deletion of a clause that critics said would allow Microsoft to gain access to the patented technologies of rival software makers without compensating them. Microsoft also asked US District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on Wednesday to throw out efforts by the remaining states to obtain stiffer sanctions against the company than it agreed to in the settlement deal with the DOJ. The company argued that only the US government could legally seek changes to Microsoft's business practices that are national in scope.

Microsoft, Justice Dept. Alter Antitrust Settlement Plan

MS Settlement Tightened Up

Microsoft, DOJ tweak settlement terms - Tech News - CNET.com

Microsoft Seeks to Throw Out Sanctions

New York Times

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1014905594669883640,00.html

Microsoft seeks dismissal of case with nonsettling states | Computerworld News & Features Story

U.S., Microsoft Clarify Provisions of Settlement (washingtonpost.com)

MICROSOFT, TWO - JUDGE SETS SCHEDULE FOR HEARINGS

US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has set the schedule for the March 11th antitrust hearings between Microsoft and the remaining states still suing the software giant. At the hearings, each side would be given 100 hours for cross examination and redirect testimony. The judge also denied the states' request to strike 18 witnesses from Microsoft's witness list. Separate hearings will convene beginning March 6 on whether the settlement is in the public interest.

Judge Sets Schedule For Microsoft Hearings

MICROSOFT, THREE - FOES CAN TESTIFY AT HEARING

US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will let outsiders, including Microsoft competitors, make presentations at next week's hearing to determine whether the landmark antitrust settlement is in the public interest, as mandated by the Tunney Act. Microsoft and the Justice Department earlier had requested that no third parties be allowed to participate in the hearing, particularly since third parties had already filed comments about the proposed settlement. Kollar-Kotelly has also denied a request that lawyers representing California class-action lawsuits against Microsoft be allowed to participate in the Tunney Act process. They raised concerns that the settlement could extinguish their right to sue Microsoft for damages stemming from the company's anti-competitive acts.

Microsoft foes can testify at hearing - Tech News - CNET.com

Wendy Seltzer

Last modified: Fri Mar 1 11:47:46 EST 2002

02/27/2002	81	RESPONSE of the United States to Public Comments on the Revised Proposed Final Judgment by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A - Comments Cited in the Response)(Hesse, Renata) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
02/27/2002	82	Proposed MOTION for Settlement Memorandum of the United States in Support of Entry of the Proposed Final Judgment by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A - Comparison of Court of Appeals' Findings on Liability to Provisions of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment# 2 Appendix B - U.S. v. Microsoft Newspaper Notice# 3 Appendix C - Declaration of David S. Sibley)(Hesse, Renata) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
02/27/2002	83	STIPULATION by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Second Revised Proposed Final Judgment)(Hesse, Renata) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
02/27/2002	84	Amended MOTION for Settlement United States' Memorandum Regarding Modifications Contained in Second Revised Proposed Final Judgment by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Second Revised Proposed Final Judgment Red-Lined Version)(Hesse, Renata) (Entered: 02/27/2002)
02/27/2002	85	RESPONSE to Defendant Microsoft Corporation's Memorandum in Support of the Second Revised Proposed Final Judgment filed by MICROSOFT CORPORATION. (Warden, John) (Entered: 02/27/2002)