Is a Microsoft breakup inevitable?

While Microsoft argued before a U.S. appeals court Monday that it did not illegally stifle competitors, judges peppered lawyers on both sides of the case with questions about the legal arguments that led to the company's court-ordered breakup.

Judge David Tatel told Microsoft's lawyer he didn't see "how you can get a reversal on this part of your case," suggesting that Microsoft's breakup is a foregone conclusion.

But the judges also had tough questions for the Justice Department about why they went after Microsoft in the first place. The court's chief judge, Harry Edwards, told Justice Department attorneys that they had portrayed Microsoft as "a paranoid monopolist, someone who gets up in the middle of the night and shoots at any movement."

Jeffrey Minear, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, argued that Microsoft spent huge amounts of money to promote its Internet Explorer browser, overwhelming competitors.

"The company used its monopoly power to stifle the competitive process," Minear asserted.

The arguments represent one of the final steps in the largest and most far-reaching antitrust ruling since the breakup of AT&T in 1984. Microsoft, known for its Windows operating system, its Internet Explorer browser and Word processing program, is appealing a judge's order that the company be split in two. The Justice Department, 18 states and the District of Columbia sued Microsoft, contending that the company violated federal antitrust law by using illegal methods to protect its monopoly.

Last June, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered the breakup of Microsoft. "Microsoft, as it is presently organized and led, is unwilling to accept the notion that it broke the law," Jackson said.

Jackson concluded that Microsoft used illegal methods to protect its monopoly in computer operating systems. He also said the company tried illegally to expand its dominance into the market for Internet browsers.

Microsoft officials say a breakup would be heavy-handed, disproportionate, and would ravage the company.

The software giant's chief executive Steve Ballmer said, "This company, which has done so many great things for consumers and the American economy over the last 25 years, will not be broken up¿No matter what the newspaper headlines say, absolutely nothing in the current case justifies breaking us up."

"We think this is good because Microsoft has proven they can't be trusted. They've demonstrated it would be a lot of work to supervise conduct rules," said James Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology.

"We think if you look at the areas that Microsoft has not been able to leverage the use of their browser though the operating system, they look pretty average. I don't know what incentive the government has to not ask for this move at this stage," he added.

One of Microsoft's central arguments in the appeals process has been that Judge Jackson demonstrated an anti-Microsoft bias in remarks to reporters and book authors. Jackson made scathing personal criticisms of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, the company's legal team and the appeals court.

Jackson accused appellate judges of "making up 90 percent of the facts on their own" in an earlier Microsoft ruling, and said they lacked practical trial experience.

No Cause for Breakup	Only Separation Will Stop Monopolization