New judge named for Microsoft case
| • | Windows XP ready for manufacturers |
By Matt Kelley
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — A federal judge with a reputation as a meticulous jurist was named yesterday to decide how Microsoft should be punished for illegally trying to squelch its software competitors, as the software giant sent its new operating system to manufacturers.
A computer program randomly picked U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to take over the Microsoft case. She replaces Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who had ordered Microsoft to be split into two separate companies.
Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee, will decide whether to break up Microsoft for being an illegal monopoly or to impose some other penalty. She will also review whether Microsoft broke the law by bundling its Internet Explorer software with its Windows operating systems.
Jackson had ruled that the Internet browser bundling was illegal, but a federal appeals court sent that matter, along with the penalty issue, back to the lower court.
Also yesterday, the Redmond, Wash., company, gave manufacturers the final code for its new Windows XP operating system, taking the final step before the software hits retailers' shelves in October.
That action made it all but impossible for Microsoft to change Windows XP to avoid new accusations of anticompetitive practices.
Windows XP includes many new features that are currently standalone products made by competitors, including a music video player and an instant messaging system. Critics say that Microsoft is using its operating system to muscle other software firms out of the market, just as it is accused of doing with Internet Explorer.
The Justice Department, which represents the government in the case, had pressed for the case to be sent back to district court and welcomed the appointment of a new judge.
"We're anxious to proceed," said Gina Talamona, spokeswoman for the department's antitrust division.
Microsoft had hoped the appeals court would put off sending the case back to the lower court while the U.S. Supreme Court considers its appeal. Spokesman Jim Desler yesterday said the move was expected by the company but declined to comment further.
Kollar-Kotelly, 58, was appointed by President Clinton in 1997. She worked as an attorney for a Washington psychiatric hospital, St. Elizabeth's, and the Justice Department's Criminal Division. She was also a judge on the District of Columbia's Superior Court from 1984 until being named to the federal court.
In two high-profile cases, Kollar-Kotelly issued consumer-friendly rulings.
She ruled in favor of credit unions in 1999 in a lawsuit by banks seeking to restrict credit union membership. She also ruled in April against companies trying to keep Ivax Corp. from marketing a generic version of the cancer drug Taxol.
Washington lawyers describe Kollar-Kotelly as an organized and efficient judge who is thorough and meticulous about weighing facts and making decisions.
"I would think she would have a thoughtful, pretty deliberate approach" to the Microsoft case, said lawyer John J. McDermott, who has had several cases before Kollar-Kotelly.
However, a lawyer who lost a case before the judge said Kollar-Kotelly caused proceedings to drag on unnecessarily.
"Her decision-making process is very slow," said John Coale, who represented Julie Hiatt Steele in a lawsuit charging that Newsweek improperly named her as a source in its Clinton scandal coverage. "She took over a year to decide a motion to dismiss, which should be done in a week or two."
Kollar-Kotelly was picked randomly from the 10 judges available to take the civil case.
Four judges removed themselves from consideration in the case, without saying why, court spokesman Joe Alexander said. It is common for judges already involved in complex, protracted cases to excuse themselves from the selection process. Judges also may remove themselves if they have personal or financial ties to either side of a case.
Jackson, an appointee of President Reagan, found Microsoft guilty of antitrust violations last year and ordered the company split in two. But the company appealed that ruling, arguing in part that Jackson had shown bias against Microsoft.
The federal appellate court subsequently embraced Jackson's findings that the company had violated the law, but did not endorse his breakup plan.
The appellate judges based their decision in part on outside statements by Jackson that criticized Microsoft founder Bill Gates as arrogant. The appeals court said those comments seriously tainted the case.
