WASHINGTON -- An appointed mediator continued working feverishly last night to work out an 11th-hour settlement in the antitrust case against Microsoft. But opinions among some of the government officials who filed the suit appeared to be hardening, setting up the likelihood that the trial judge will issue a verdict as soon as today.
In interviews yesterday, some officials said they thought Microsoft's settlement proposal, offered Friday, was inadequate on its face. Others said they did not trust Microsoft to live up to its promises.
"It wasn't too long ago that Microsoft's president was saying `to heck with Janet Reno,' " one official noted. "I think Microsoft is now paying for their prior credibility problems."
Another said, "This proposal simply falls short of what the public interest demands."
Driven by reports last week that Microsoft might settle the case, the company's stock gained more than 7 percent Thursday. But yesterday it closed at $104.06, down $7.62, or 6.8 percent.
A week ago, trial judge Thomas Penfield Jackson called the litigants into his office and told them they had another week to settle the case. If they failed, he said, he would issue his verdict today -- though several officials said yesterday they believed he might hold off a few days because the talks are continuing.
Ever since Jackson's strongly worded findings of fact in November, the expectation has been that the verdict, when it comes, would find that Microsoft violated the nation's antitrust laws.
On Friday, Microsoft delivered a settlement offer with more than a dozen proposals. Among them, the company said it would provide computer makers a version of Windows that did not include access to the company's Web browser, Internet Explorer -- although how that would be accomplished remains unclear. Microsoft has argued since 1997 that Windows and Internet Explorer are one, inseparable product.
Microsoft also agreed to charge common prices for Windows so the company could not use pricing to penalize or reward computer makers for their level of cooperation. Trial evidence showed that Microsoft penalized IBM with higher prices for Windows.
The company also promised to make the program interfaces that allow software writers to link their programs to Windows freely available. Microsoft has been charged with holding those interfaces back from companies that do not cooperate on other matters.
