Delaying tactic.

This is a counter to the DoJ's request to accelerate the retrial by cutting out Microsoft's 52 days to ask for a rehearing. Their logic is that since the case was judged by the full panel of 7 judges and the verdict was unanimous any request for a rehearing will be denied, so just deny it right off.

The DoJ is obviously gunning for an injunction on Windows XP.

Microsoft just as obviously rushed this out to get it on the table before the Court of Appeals agreed with the DoJ, thus giving them a chance for at least some delay. We will now have to see how many days it takes the Court of Appeals to reject the request.

The DoJ hopes it will take little time, and Microsoft hopes it will take a long time. Every day makes it harder for the DoJ to get that injunction on time.

In response to delay tactics, you are right but this commingling (bolting, tieing, what-have-you) issue is very important to them. Microsoft needs to be able to bolt Apps into the OS in order to maintain their monopolies (OS and Office). The courts seem reluctant to let Microsoft decide what is fair. It must be surprising to MS that the courts are smart enough to know the difference between an OS and an App.

I think Kudos are in order for both Judge Jackson and the Court of Appeals judges for their understanding of what many people thought was too technical a case for them. They even realize that this case must be tried in internet time. I'm impressed so far! :)

[link|http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6615757.html?tag=mn_hd|
Government must reply to Microsoft request ]

By Joe Wilcox
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
July 19, 2001, 12:40 p.m. PT

WASHINGTON--A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered the government to respond to Microsoft's request for rehearing.
....
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit upheld eight separate antitrust violations against Microsoft, which is asking for rehearing on only one point: commingling.

In its June 28 decision, seven appellate judges agreed with a lower-court ruling concluding Microsoft's commingling of Internet Explorer code with that of Windows 95 and Windows 98 was an illegal anticompetitive act.

"The real significance of that part of the decision was the Court of Appeals showed itself very ready to second-guess Microsoft's technology designs and decisions," Gray said.

Microsoft declined to comment on the court's order, which is considered to be fairly routine.

The Redmond, Wash.-based company could have asked for rehearing on any or all of the appeals ruling. But because the court heard the case en banc--before a full panel of eligible judges--and delivered a unanimous decision, Microsoft's chances for rehearing are limited at best, say legal experts.

By focusing on one issue, Microsoft has the best chance for rehearing, but "even that is unlikely," said Emmett Stanton, an antitrust attorney with Fenwick & West in Palo Alto, Calif. But of all the "findings against Microsoft, commingling is the worst because it addresses software design," Stanton said.

Welcome to IWETHEY!