e Court also felt that Microsoft had proved itself untrustworthy in the past. In earlier proceedings where a preliminary injunction was entered, Microsoft's claimed compliance with that injunction while it was on appeal. This proved not to be the case and Microsofts explanation for its behavior was deemed disingenuous. Assuming that Microsoft would respond in similar fashion to an injunctive solution in this case, it seemed likely that the earlier enforcement measures were employed the more effective they are likely to be.The last reason the Court gave for refusing Microsofts plea for additional findings and another trial stemmed from its belief that extending the proceedings on what form remedies should take would be fruitless. It seemed highly unlikely that Microsoft would generate what might be generally regarded as an optimum remedy by postponing the outcome. Along with public regard to Microsoft's culpability, opinion of what constitutes an appropriate fix remains sharply divided. There is little hope that those differing opinions can be reconciled by anything short of an actual successful remedy. Plaintiffs won the case, and for that reason alone, according to the Court, have some entitlement to a remedy of their choice. The proposed final judgment was represented to the Court as incorporating provisions successfully utilized in the past. It appeared to the Court to address all the principal objectives of relief in such cases, namely: to terminate the unlawful conduct, to prevent its repetition in the future, and to revive competition in the relevant markets. The final judgment proposed by the plaintiffs may have been more radical than what would have resulted if mediation been successful and terminated in a consent decree. It was ordered by the Court that, the motion of defendant Microsoft Corporation for summary rejection of the plaintiffs' proposed structural reorganization is denied; and it isf...
