Lawyers sympathetic to the government's antitrust case against Microsoft
filed a stack of new briefs in the case Tuesday.
In separate briefs, the
Software and Information Industry Association
argued that the
should apply to software, and Robert H. Bork, the former solicitor general and
Court of Appeals
judge, argued that the company's practices hurt consumers.
Bork filed on behalf of the state attorneys general whose cases against the company have been consolidated, while the association filed on behalf of the
And Lawrence Lessig, a professor at
Harvard Law School
, turned in a brief requested by the court discussing the history of "tying" arrangements in antitrust cases. The government's case asserts Microsoft illegally tied its Internet browser to the Windows operating system.
The new arguments followed a brief filed Monday on behalf of Microsoft that was signed by prominent legal experts, including former attorneys general.
Lessig's brief may prove the most significant in the new pile on the court's desk, said Joseph Angland, a partner in the antitrust group of the law firm
, simply because "he presumedly is neutral, whereas the others presumedly are lawyers."
Microsoft also filed Tuesday its own reply to the prosecution's reply to the company's proposed conclusions of law.
In the antitrust case, Judge
Thomas Penfield Jackson
has made a preliminary finding of fact that Microsoft is a monopoly and engages in predatory marketing practices. Judge Richard Posner of the
Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
is supervising negotiations between the company and government lawyers in Chicago that could lead to a settlement.
The latest filings were disclosed Tuesday afternoon. Microsoft's shares closed at 102 15/16, up 5 1/6 or 5.2%.