“Judge Benson, in dismissing Microsoft’s summary judgement
motions in the Caldera case, surprisingly commented that he didn’t
agree with the DC court of appeals decision that let Microsoft off
the hook about tying IE to Windows. Rather surprisingly, his court
is not bound by that decision, but if Microsoft finds its DoJ
case back in the appellate court in DC, or in the supreme court –
as seems highly likely – it will be extremely interesting to see
how Judge Benson’s view influences the outcome. In view of the
importance that Microsoft has attached to that case, it’s worth
delving into just what the judge’s view is in Salt Lake City.”
“Judge Benson noted that “Microsoft contends that so long as the
integrated design of Windows 95 offers any technological benefit,
its design is immune to judicial review under the antitrust laws.”
Because the tying cases that are binding upon this Court involve
non-technical products…, Microsoft argues that the Court should
apply the reasoning used by the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit in United States v Microsoft” last
year.”
“He noted that “Microsoft relies heavily on this case in support
of its present motion, premising its argument on the contention
that technically integrated products are immune from per se [from
Sherman Act section 1] liability. As with the case at bar, the case
before the D.C. Circuit arose from Microsoft’s practices in
marketing Windows 95. In that case, the D.C. Circuit considered
whether the district court erred in entering a preliminary
injunction prohibiting Microsoft from requiring computer
manufacturers who license its operating system software to license
its internet browser, Internet Explorer, as well….”