In November, US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly approved a consent decree in the long-running antitrust case, which the Justice Department and the states filed in 1998. Kollar-Kotelly rejected stricter remedies proposed by some of the state attorneys general, saying the restrictions on Microsoft were so outlandish that they amounted to an "unjustified manipulation of the marketplace" designed to give competitors such as Sun Microsystems, Apple Computer and Red Hat an "artificial advantage."
Two states, Massachusetts and West Virginia, decided to appeal Kollar-Kotelly's decision.
A Microsoft representative on Thursday said, "This is a procedural matter. The parties have a right to appeal, and there is no question that the appeal would be heard.... Our focus right now is on full and complete compliance with the final judgments."
While the appeals court by law must hear appeals, the judges said--in an unusual move--that the full appeals court will sit "en banc" to hear the case, rather than assign it to a three-judge panel. The court's order was dated 13 March.
The judges have not set a date for oral arguments in the case, but they're likely to be held by this summer.
Legal experts predict Massachusetts and West Virginia will have a difficult time before the appeals court, especially because Kollar-Kotelly spent 32 days last spring on hearings before crafting a remedy that would be appropriate.
In an separate case filed against Microsoft by archrival Sun Microsystems, attorneys for both companies will square off against each other before a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, next Thursday.
Microsoft's claims that embedding software into their operating system is beneficial to their users is patently false.
Most users wouldn't notice the difference between an 'embedded' application and an application that works well with related software using solid APIs. Embedding software only benefits the manufacturer by making sure that alternative choices can't easily replace the software in questions.
As importantly, embedded software denies the end user the choice of whether or not they actually need that software functionality. For example, I recently heard of a hotel chain with 6500 desktops that uses linux because their employees don't need a web browser and the inclusion of one in their desktop is just another distraction that takes time away from their customers. Windows, with IE embedded so tightly into Windows, wasn't an option. Clearly, for this customer (who claims to be platform agnostic), embedding the web browser into the operating system denies them the choice of whether or not a browser is actually needed and isn't in their interests.
The chain is thrilled with Linux which does what then need it to and allows them to configure the desktop to meet their needs and run the software they need without having extraneous software installed.
It's not only an issue of whether customers can use alternative software. It's also about being able to choose whether the software needs to be installed anyway. Microsoft's actions to embed their third party applications into Windows denies choice at both levels leaving the consumer the worse for wear.