Judge Refuses To Dismiss Antitrust Charges Versus MicrosoftJudge Refuses To Dismiss Antitrust Charges Versus Microsoft

Microsoft went 0-for-3 in court on Friday as a federal judge in Baltimore refused to dismiss antitrust charges filed against the company in separate cases by Sun Microsystems and two small software companies.

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz said he would allow suits filed by Be Inc. and Burst.com to proceed. "I am satisfied there are sufficient allegations as to federal antitrust claims," Motz said in court after hearing arguments from the parties.

In the Sun case, Motz dismissed two of 16 claims made by Sun, though the judge said Sun could resubmit the charges with amendments. The two claims deal with monopolization of personal computer operating systems and the Web browser market.

Motz reserved judgment on Microsoft's attempts to dismiss additional claims, some of which involve allegations of "tying," in which a seller with monopoly power over one product uses that power to coerce the purchase of a second product.

"I'm just going to go back and take one more look at it," Motz said.

Sun attorney Lloyd R. Day said Motz' decision to drop two claims wouldn't affect the case.

Motz had sided with Sun last month, saying he would issue a preliminary injunction ordering Microsoft to distribute Sun's Java programming language in its Windows operating system.

Be, which dissolved as a company last year, has alleged that it was excluded from competing in the market for computer operating systems when Microsoft pressured computer makers Compaq and Dell not to ship PCs with two operating systems. Be sold its operating system to Palm Inc. in 2001.

Burst contends that Microsoft forced it out of the market for video-streaming software by pressuring Intel and RealNetworks Inc. not to support its technologies.

Burst.com attorney Spencer Hosie argues that by developing its own streaming technology, known as Windows Media Player, Microsoft "essentially muscled all the other competitors aside, and seized it for itself."

Attorneys for Microsoft said the Be and Burst cases should be thrown out, saying not all Microsoft's tactics were anti-competitive and questioning whether the two small companies were harmed.

Motz has been assigned cases arising from the landmark government antitrust suit filed in 1998, including a private suit by AOL Time Warner and class-action suits on behalf of consumers.

Two states, Massachusetts and West Virginia, have appealed on the grounds that it's too weak a settlement of the government case endorsed by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in November.

In 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed that Microsoft had illegally maintained its monopoly in the Windows operating system but rejected breaking the company in two to prevent future violations.

Microsoft on Friday argued that Motz should dismiss some of Sun's charges that it was harmed by Microsoft illegally tying its Internet browser and other software to Windows. But Motz wasn't swayed, saying: "Obviously, there are serious issues related to the tying claim."

Both Microsoft and Sun told Motz they were having difficulty agreeing on the exact terms of the preliminary injunction requiring Microsoft to include Sun's Java software in Windows.