Legal Expert Says State AGs Should Join Microsoft Settlement

Nov 06, 2001, 00:00 ET from White House Writers Group

    STORRS, Conn., Nov. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Leonard Orland, University of
 Connecticut School of Law professor and the author of numerous articles on the
 U.S. v. Microsoft case issued the following statement on the settlement
 reached today by most of the parties in the case:
     From a legal perspective, the settlement announced today by Microsoft, the
 Department of Justice and half the state Attorneys General in the landmark
 United States v. Microsoft antitrust case clearly makes sense. What doesn't
 make sense is the continued opposition by the remaining AGs.
     When Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly turned the screws on the contesting
 parties to reach a settlement in a tight time frame, she said settlement could
 be achieved if all parties were "reasonable" and pointed to the virtues of
 compromise "in light of the recent tragic events affecting our nation."
     Concessions were made on all sides. Not only do provisions in the
 agreement address each of the narrow charges left standing against Microsoft
 by the Court of Appeals, but Microsoft conceded far more in order to reach
 settlement than a court would have required of the company in litigation. That
 was enough for the DOJ and half the state AGs to sign on to the deal and put
 the case behind them.
     But the extremist parties who persist in dragging out the proceedings
 against Microsoft in these uncertain times by seeking unwarranted and
 draconian conduct remedies do so at the expense of their states' consumers,
 innovation, and the economy.
                     MAKE YOUR OPINION COUNT -  Click Here

SOURCE White House Writers Group