In response to Microsoft's Appeal of the Preliminary Injunction in which it states that the only way to comply with the Preliminary Injunction is by offering commercially worthless software, the DOJ moved to find Microsoft in contempt of court for violating the "letter and spirit" of the Preliminary Injunction.  While Microsoft  admits that its reading of the Preliminary Injunction is absurd, instead of questioning their interpretation, they question the validity of the Order itself.

 Actual Text of DOJ's Motion
 Actual Text of Memorandum in Support of Motion

Microsoft Violating Order

First, the DOJ claims that the Preliminary Injunction does just what the Consent Decree requires - it prevents Microsoft from forcing OEMs to take browser software as a condition of installing Windows 95.  The Injunction does not proscribe file by file what should be removed from the OS.  It leaves the technical details to Microsoft, thereby disproving its complaint that the government is trying to intrude into product design.

Second, the DOJ claims that Microsoft's reading of the Preliminary Injunction constitutes flouting the Court's order.  Microsoft presents the language of the Preliminary Injunction as explicitly stating that they must remove the software code which constitutes the off the shelf product, Internet Explorer.  However, the language of the actual Injunction refers only to Microsoft's licensing policies.  Under Microsoft's reading, Windows 95 would be severely disabled, and commercially worthless.  Microsoft admits the absurdity of this interpretation, and hedges its bets by offering a second alternative: Windows 3.0, an equally commercially worthless option.  "[T]he very fact Microsoft hedged its bets with this option -- which Microsoft nowhere contends by itself satisfies the injunction -- demonstrates that Microsoft's construction of the injunction is a contrivance, adopted not in order 'to give effect to its spirit and purpose,' Grove Fresh, 888 F. Supp. at 1438, but rather to advance its own interests." ( Reply Memorandum )

Proposed Solution

The DOJ proposes a relief which is appropriate and complies with the Preliminary Injunction.  This relief is to offer OEMs the same Add/Remove Program capability which is offered to end users.  Microsoft complains that this solution does not comply with the Preliminary Injunction because it leaves a large portion of the I.E. code in the OS.  This complaint, however, assumes Microsoft's interpretation of the Preliminary Injunction which requires removal of all I.E. code, and not the more appropriate interpretation outlined above.  In addition, the DOJ claims this solution should be appropriate for Microsoft because the Court is not interfering with Microsoft's technology - it is simply using Microsoft programs as they were intended to be used.  This solution makes available to OEMs the same alternatives which Microsoft thinks are valuable to users.