I think Sun's primary business strategy these days is to try and file as many court cases against Microsoft as possible. I think our only point is that Sun should try and focus on making their technology work and less on trying to bring new lawsuits against Microsoft. |
It clearly reveals one important thing that the government is trying to do, which is avoid the Court of Appeals in every possible way. |
It's surprising that they took 17 pages to respond to our two-paragraph request for a stay from the trial court. These requests are normally pro-forma. The real request for a stay is filed at the appeals court level. |
It's unfortunate but not surprising that the government has filed a document filled with rhetoric in its attempt to defend a very extreme remedy proposal. Beyond the rhetoric, we do not believe there is any basis for these kinds of excessive actions which would significantly harm consumers, the high-tech industry, and the economy. |
It's unfortunate that the government is playing these kinds of procedural games which are only designed to inject complexity and delay into the process of resolving this case. |
Microsoft doesn't sell products directly to consumers. Consumers go through equipment makers and re-sellers, so it all depends on how they got it. |
Our position is that we will address the violations that the court found, that's what we'll do tomorrow. There's several things that are being filed tomorrow, not just a proposed remedy. This isn't just about the proposed remedy, it's about the process of moving ahead, it's about our objections to the government's proposal. |
The [Judge's] denial was Sun's position in the language [of the agreement] that the court basically supported our position. We're pleased with the court's ruling and we think it's encouraging that this ruling will be very helpful when we move towards the counter-claims, which will show that Sun, not Microsoft, violated this contract and Sun failed to deliver the technology it was required to do under the contract. |
The government asked for the conference call in order to get more time. The government wants more time because they realize how vague, ambiguous, and poorly written their proposal is after reading our filing yesterday. |
The government has only made cosmetic changes to its vague and ambiguous proposal. Their plan remains unprecedented, excessive, and harmful. The exercise of the past few days does not substitute in any way for a legitimate process, in which Microsoft could have challenged the government's assumptions and assertions related to its unprecedented breakup plan and draconian regulations. |
The government is making good points from a public-relations perspective but a number of points haven't been touched. |
The government's petition is certainly questionable about the rationale for expediting this case directly to the Supreme Court. Microsoft does not believe that the government should try to evade the Court of Appeals. |
The government's proposal does not change the fact that breaking Microsoft up will be bad for consumers, bad for the high-tech industry and bad for the economy. |
There's nothing in the court of appeals decision or the original decision that supports the contention that Microsoft overcharged consumers. We believe that there is no validity to these suggestions. And we believe so far that we have been successful in many of the private class-action lawsuits. |
This does not change the fact that this remedy is harmful and damaging to consumers, the industry and our economy. |