MICROSOFT'S REACTION

April 28, 2000
		Following the government's announcement, several Microsoft officials made statements critical of the Justice Department's action and defending their company. The following is text of their comments.

Online Special: The Microsoft Case April 3, 2000 Judge rules against Microsoft April 3, 2000 Analysis of the court's decision against Microsoft Nov. 8, 1999 Microsoft's Bob Herbold responds to the decision that Microsoft is a monopoly. Nov. 5, 1999 Two legal experts analyze the court's findings in Microsoft antitrust case. April 1, 1999 Efforts to settle Microsoft case failed. Nov. 12, 1998 A discussion on each side's arguments in the antitrust case. May 18, 1998 Justice Department and 20 states launch antitrust actions. May 18, 1998 Technology experts discuss how the Microsoft case will shape the industry. April 14, 1998 Did Microsoft try to stifle competition? Jan. 13, 1998 The Justice Department files a complaint against Microsoft. Oct. 21, 1997 The Justice Department charges Microsoft with monopolistic practices. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of cyberspace and law.   Microsoft Netscape United States Department of Justice US v. Microsoft antitrust filings

Bill Gates, Microsoft Chairman Breaking up Microsoft into separate companies is not in the interest of consumers and is not supported by anything in the lawsuit. Microsoft never could have created Windows and Office if they were in separate companies. Innovations that began within Office have quickly been incorporated into Windows so they are available to every applications developer. Dismantling Microsoft would hurt the company's ability to continue to innovate, and that would hurt consumers. It's anti-consumer to tear apart the development teams that created two of the most innovative technology products and that have helped to revolutionize productivity. Microsoft has a proven track record of delivering consumer value as a single company. People can disagree about some of the issues in this case, but the government's proposals are clearly unreasonable and punitive beyond reason. These regulations are out of touch with consumers and are completely out of proportion to the issues in the case. The net effect of these remedies is that they run against what consumers want: products that are easy to use, work well together, are innovative and affordable. Microsoft has worked hard for years to develop Windows and Office, and these products have provided great benefits to millions of consumers. The message of today is that if you invent two great products, the government may someday take one of them away. We are proud of the work we did to add Internet features to Windows. Should the courts decide to rule against us, we do not believe that provides a reason to deprive Microsoft of its flagship product. Steve Ballmer, Microsoft President and CEO Customers, partners and shareholders can expect that Microsoft will continue to compete in a fair and legal manner, as we believe we always have. We will continue to work within the American judicial system to resolve this lawsuit, and we will continue to move ahead in the marketplace with a great vision for the next generation of software. For months, the government and a handful of our competitors have been repeating that Microsoft should be broken up. But no matter how many times it's repeated, it's still unreasonable. I remain proud of the work this company does. We do not believe we have violated the law and the Court of Appeals has yet to consider this case. We also believe we have an obligation to our shareholders, employees, partners and customers to stand up for what we believe is right. Microsoft has exciting plans to develop a broad array of next-generation software products that will take computing to the next level, but those plans are imperiled by the extreme regulation proposed by the government. William H. Neukom, Microsoft General Counsel These government proposals are disappointing. The Court did not find that Windows and Office became popular because of any wrongful conduct by Microsoft. The government's proposals bear little relationship to the case it presented at trial and they are not supported by the evidence or the Court's legal conclusions. The case has always been about browser software, not the relationship between Windows and Office. There has never been a court-ordered breakup of a unitary operating company. The evidence and law applicable to this case fell far short of providing the basis for such a drastic and unprecedented remedy. This case has always been about browser software, not spreadsheets and word processors. The government is seeking to try a whole new lawsuit involving products, competitors and interests that were not involved in any way in the case that was tried. In effect, the remedies proposed by the government acknowledge that competition and innovation in this industry are moving so quickly that the government no longer cares about a remedy that addresses the case the government tried in the courtroom.