News 

Both Kenneth Arrow and Joseph Stiglitz are reported to have filed affidavits as part of submissions from the ProComp organisation (partly funded by the likes of Sun and AOL).

Professor Arrow has strongly criticised the settlement for failing to punish Microsoft sufficiently for its illegal conduct, failing to restore competition in the market and failings to strengthen the possibilities for future competition.

'Given that finding, the remedies in this case should eliminate the benefits to Microsoft of its illegal conduct; should restore, if possible, the possibility of competition in operating systems; and should not allow Microsoft to protect its illegally maintained monopoly from current and future competition in related markets, such as server operating

ADVERTISEMENT

systems and Web services,' says Arrow in his affidavit. 'In my opinion, the PFJ (proposed final judgment) fails to accomplish these objectives.'

It's not all dissenting voices though. The Microsoft-sponsored Freedom To Innovate and the Association for Competitive Technology campaign argued the case for acceptance of the US Department of Justice (DoJ) settlement. Among the 'pro' supporters were the former US attorney generals Griffin Bell and Edwin Meese.

The DoJ will have 30 days to form a response to the public submissions and then - on 11 March - the spotlight will move once again to the presiding Judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

Currently, the case is proceeding along two tracks. One involves examining the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the DoJ (together with nine states). The other concerns the nine states that refused to settle with the DoJ and that are pursuing an alternative, more rigorous settlement.

Last week - adding to the litigation concerns of Microsoft - the American Antitrust Institute criticised the terms of the DoJ and Microsoft settlement. The institute is claiming the parties didn't fully disclose the details of their agreement and that a number of procedural errors have occurred.