ad info

 
CNN.comTranscripts
 
Editions | myCNN | Video | Audio | Headline News Brief | Feedback  

 

  Search
 
 

 

TOP STORIES

Bush signs order opening 'faith-based' charity office for business

Rescues continue 4 days after devastating India earthquake

DaimlerChrysler employees join rapidly swelling ranks of laid-off U.S. workers

Disney's GO.com is a goner

(MORE)

MARKETS
4:30pm ET, 4/16
144.70
8257.60
3.71
1394.72
10.90
879.91
 


WORLD

U.S.

POLITICS

LAW

TECHNOLOGY

ENTERTAINMENT

 
TRAVEL

ARTS & STYLE



(MORE HEADLINES)
 
CNN Websites
Networks image


Morning News

Microsoft Antitrust Case Enters 2nd Day of Arguments

Aired February 27, 2001 - 9:09 a.m. ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Federal appeals court judges hear a second day of arguments in the Microsoft antitrust case today. At issue there: Can attorneys for the software giant convince the judges to reverse a court-ordered breakup of the company?

Let's go now to CNN's Jeanne Meserve, who's been following the story for this last couple of days. Jeanne's in Washington this morning.

Good morning, Jeanne.

JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Leon.

Today again expect high-paced questioning from the seven judges on the appeals court to the attorneys from Microsoft and the U.S. government. Today they will be looking at the breakup plan for Microsoft and the comments and conduct of the man who devised it, District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson.

Yesterday, both sides got put on the hot seat.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STEVE YOUNG, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Lawyers for both Microsoft and the government expected the U.S. Court of Appeals to be friendlier to the software giant than Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. But the seven judges turned out to be an equal opportunity tormentor, putting Microsoft on the griddle in the morning, then turning up the heat on the government in the afternoon.

The company claimed it didn't put its web browser in windows to crush Netscape but to help consumers. But chief judge Harry Edwards scoffed when Microsoft lawyer Richard Urowsky said that answering a follow up question was tough because the technology is so complicated.

RICHARD UROWSKY, MICROSOFT ATTORNEY: ... more complicated, more technically complicated.

CHIEF JUDGE HARRY EDWARDS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS: Not really. No, it's not. I mean, I'm not buying that one for a minutes. It's not technically complicated at all.

YOUNG: The judges also didn't seem to buy Microsoft's argument that it's not a monopoly because the market it competes in isn't just PCs, but practically every kind of device that uses software. Then came the grilling for the government, after lawyer John Roberts said Microsoft broke the law by refusing to let PC companies drop Microsoft's Web browser. Judge Raymond Randolph, who sided with the company in 1998, pounced.

JUDGE RAYMOND RANDOLPH, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS: It's almost like you're saying I'd like to buy a clock radio without a clock.

YOUNG: The dispute was over what the law calls tying. Most antitrust experts believe if the appeals court knocks down that part of Judge Jackson's ruling, it's likely to say Microsoft needs to be reined in, but not broken up.

WILLIAM KOVACIC, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: It would be relatively breathtaking and difficult for the panel to simply brush aside everything that Judge Jackson found in his conclusions and simply to find that's there's no violation.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MESERVE: Under scrutiny today: Judge Jackson. He has been unusually outspoken about this case and its participates.

In a recent article in "The New Yorker" magazine, Judge Jackson is quoted of saying Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, "I think he has a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experience, no reverses."

Microsoft says -- Microsoft lawyers say that comments like that indicate that he was biased in this case. They say he made some errors of substance and procedures.

Some indication in the courtroom yesterday that at least one of the judges agreed that the chief judge on the appeals court saying yesterday that some of Jackson's findings were merely conclusions, not supported by the evidence.

The case begin -- beginning shortly. We will be following for you.

Leon, back to you.

HARRIS: And Jeanne, this may be a little bit premature to ask, but I'm going to have to anyway. Are you seeing any signals at all, did they indicate just how long this will go on?

MESERVE: Well, the arguments will conclude today. Seven hours were slated for arguments. And that's very unusual. Usually, this court -- appeals court only allots an hour for cases like this.

So the arguments will be over today. As to when the decision comes down, experts say it will be months, at least.

Back to you, Leon.

HARRIS: All right, good deal. Thanks much, Jeanne Meserve, reporting live for us in Washington. See you in a bit.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

 Search   


Back to the top