In the coming seven days, Microsoft's EU and US antitrust cases will reach critical junctures. A routine US hearing tomorrow will likely be anything but routine. Elsewhere, an appeals court will issue a ruling on the validity of Microsoft's adverse antitrust case in Europe.

The two cases follow different tracks, because of their focus and variances in antitrust law, but they overlap in current form around server interoperability. Here, US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will soon decide whether or not to extend Microsoft antitrust oversight. Next week, Europe's Court of First Instance will rule on the validity of the Competition Commission's findings against Microsoft and the remedy, including a stiff fine imposed against the company.

In both cases, Microsoft has embarked on aggressive campaigns to diminish the remedies' impact on its core businesses, by shifting technology development away from the rulings' scope and dragging out the disclosure of server protocol information.

This essay makes no value judgment about Microsoft's behavior, whether right or wrong. Microsoft's actions speak for themselves. To people that believe Microsoft was wrongly prosecuted: The company's actions are self defense, against regulation that hamstrings competitiveness. To people that believe Microsoft was rightly prosecuted: The company's actions demonstrate how a dangerous and unrepentant monopoly preserves its anti-competitive position. Readers only interested in Microsoft's behavior should skip to the second and third subheads.

Full Story At Source

Send via e-mail | Submit to Digg | Add to Live Favorites