|
|
||
|
Microsoft's Appeal of the Preliminary Injunction
In response to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's Preliminary Injunction requiring Microsoft to offer OEMs a version of Windows 95 without Internet Explorer (I.E.), Microsoft appealed this decision. Microsoft claims that in addition to containing fundamental errors, the Preliminary Injunction upsets the status quo rather than preserves it, and causes irreparable harm to Microsoft, third parties, and the general public. Actual
text of Microsoft's Motion for an Expedited Appeal
Fundamental Errors Microsoft claims that the Preliminary Injunction is invalid because of fundamental errors on the part of the Court. These errors violate standard procedures for invoking preliminary injunctions.
Preliminary Injunction Upsets the Status Quo Microsoft finally argues that the Preliminary Injunction, supposedly invoked to preserve the status quo, does just the opposite and causes unnecessary and irreparable harm to Microsoft. Microsoft does not currently, and never did offer a version of Windows 95 without the Internet functionality of Internet Explorer. By removing all the code that has anything to do with Internet Explorer, Windows 95 will cease to work - in fact, it might not even start. In addition, many third party application developers rely on I.E. functionality in their programs. With I.E. removed, their programs would either not work, or they would have to delay development (a major setback in the fast paced environment of application development). Finally, the Preliminary Injunction applies not only to Windows 95, but to all successors, including Windows 98, even though the DOJ has no evidence about Windows 98. The Preliminary Injunction would harm Microsoft, who has invested a lot of time, effort and money into this complicated product, as well as third party developers who are relying on Windows 98 being released in the second quarter of 1998. |