Calling the entire proceeding "infected with error," the company argued in the brief that because of a variety of factual, legal and procedural errors, the ruling should be reversed. Microsoft said that the ruling would harm, rather than encourage innovation.
"Revealing a profound misunderstanding of the antitrust laws, the district court condemned Microsoft's competitive response to the phenomenal growth of the Internet and the emergence of Netscape as a platform competitor," Microsoft argued. "Far from violating the antitrust laws, Microsoft's conduct was procompetitive, producing enormous consumer benefits."
The brief's attack spread across a broad legal canvas. It asserted that Jackson's speaking tour after the trial, "together with his improper handling of the litigation" coloured public perception of the case, "undermin[ing] all confidence in the integrity of the proceedings."
In the brief, Microsoft claims that Windows and Internet Explorer are not separate products "because there are significant benefits to the integrated design of Windows that cannot be duplicated by combining an operating system with a stand-alone Web browser like Navigator."
The appeals court ordered Microsoft to present its brief -- not to exceed 150 pages -- on November 27. It subsequently ordered a 25-page joint "friend of the court" brief from the Association for Competitive Technology and the Computing Technology Industry Association also to be presented Monday, along with a joint brief from the Association for Objective Law and the Centre for the Moral Defense of Capitalism.
The court scheduled the US government to file its reply 12 January, 2001.
Jackson ruled on 7 June that Microsoft had used its dominance in operating systems to quash competition. Adopting the proposal of US Department of Justice prosecutors, he ruled Microsoft must be broken up into two separate companies.
One company would own the Windows operating system -- subject to conduct restrictions -- while the other would own applications, including the Microsoft Office suite of software applications and the Internet Explorer Web browser. Jackson's final judgment stayed the breakup until the end of the appeals process.
Microsoft's brief asserts that "the district court's so-called 'conduct' remedies -- particularly the forced disclosure of Microsoft's intellectual property and regulation of Microsoft's operating system design -- are punitive and excessive in relation to the asserted antitrust violations, and these remedies will harm, rather than benefit, consumers."