Bristol files reply in Microsoft suit

Bristol has filed a reply brief in its case against Microsoft for anticompetitive behaviour, manipulation of access to Windows APIs, and antitrust offences. Bristol wants a preliminary injunction forcing Microsoft to carry on providing NT source code on reasonable terms. The hearing will start on 15 October in the federal court at Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bristol says in its brief that Microsoft's own documents show its predatory intent, and the power Microsoft wields through Windows to displace Unix in the server and workstation markets. Much of Bristol's brief is covered with 35 censorship redactions, because many internal Microsoft documents are quoted and these are deemed confidential. Microsoft strategy is now to restrict Bristol's access to the code, in order to limit applications being developed for Unix. Brian Croll, director of Solaris product marketing, supports Bristol in a declaration that says: "Wind/U competes with Windows by allowing Solaris to run applications written for the Windows API... [enabling] a higher degree of competition between Solaris and NT by expanding the Solaris application base to include Windows applications, thereby reducing the principal advantage that NT has to offer in relation to Solaris." Bristol's arguments for a preliminary injunction are: Microsoft acquired its desktop monopoly unlawfully; maintaining such a monopoly is unlawful; Microsoft is using monopoly leverage to obtain a dominant share of the markets; Microsoft used WISE (Windows interface source environment, the 1994 programme that resulted in the partnership) as a 'Trojan horse' to entice Unix developers to use the Windows interface; and that, contrary to Microsoft's assertions, Bristol is a competitor of Microsoft. Microsoft killed the WISE programme by demanding unreasonable royalties after it had eliminated threats from Sun's WABI (Windows Applications Binary Interface) and an open public Windows interface. Bristol claims that large parts of Microsoft's brief are "completely spurious". In its brief, Bristol says that it is threatened with irreparable injury and would be eliminated as a competitor if it were not granted a preliminary injunction: it is a "life or death proposition". ® Click for more stories