UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, No. 1:1998cv01232 - Document 701 (D.D.C. 2002)
Court Description: STIPULATION by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Second Revised Proposed Final Judgment)(Hesse, Renata)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION Doc. 701 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK) Plaintiff, v. Next Court Deadline: March 6, 2002 Tunney Act Hearing MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”), the States of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin (collectively, the “Settling States”) and Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), by and through their respective attorneys, having agreed to the entry of this Stipulation, it is hereby stipulated and agreed that: 1. A Final Judgment in the form attached hereto (“second revised proposed Final Judgment”) may be filed and entered by the Court in this action and as to the Settling States only in State of New York, et al. v. Microsoft (Civil Action No. 98-1233(CKK)), upon the motion of any party or upon the Court’s own motion, at any time after compliance with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16, and without further notice to any party or other proceedings, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent, which it may do at any time before the entry of the second revised proposed Final Judgment by serving notice thereof on Microsoft and by filing that notice with the Court. 2. Microsoft’s prior obligations to comply with the revised proposed Final Judgment, submitted to the Court on November 6, 2001, shall continue uninterrupted under this Stipulation and Dockets.Justia.com the second revised proposed Final Judgment (except as modified by the second revised proposed Final Judgment) as if the second revised proposed Final Judgment was in full force and effect. Unless otherwise provided in the second revised proposed Final Judgment, Microsoft shall immediately begin complying with the second revised proposed Final Judgment as if it was in full force and effect. Where the second revised proposed Final Judgment provides that the timing of Microsoft’s obligations are calculated from the date of submission to the Court of the second revised proposed Final Judgment, the time shall be calculated from November 6, 2001, the date of submission to the Court of the revised proposed Final Judgment. Subject to the foregoing, Microsoft agrees to be bound by the provisions of the second revised proposed Final Judgment pending its entry by the Court. If the United States withdraws its consent, or if (a) the second revised proposed Final Judgment is not entered pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, (b) the time has expired for all appeals of any Court ruling declining to enter the second revised proposed Final Judgment, and (c) the Court has not otherwise ordered continued compliance with the terms and provisions of the second revised proposed Final Judgment, then all of the parties shall be released from all further obligations under this Stipulation, and the making of this Stipulation shall be without prejudice to any party in this or any other proceeding. 3. Once the requirements for compliance with 15 U.S.C. § 16, as set forth in the Stipulation filed by the parties on November 6, 2001, have been satisfied, the United States will file with the Court a certificate of compliance and a Motion for Entry of Second Revised Proposed Final Judgment, unless it withdraws its consent to entry of the second revised proposed Final Judgment pursuant to paragraph 2, above. At any time thereafter, and at the conclusion of any further proceedings ordered by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(f), the Court may then enter the second revised proposed Final Judgment, provided that the Court determines that entry of the second revised proposed Final Judgment will serve the public interest. -2- DATED this 27th day of February, 2002 FOR PLAINTIFF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: ____________________________________ DEBORAH P. MAJORAS Deputy Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division United States Department of Justice 901 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-2401 FOR PLAINTIFFS THE STATES OF NEW YORK, OHIO, ILLINOIS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, NORTH CAROLINA AND WISCONSIN: ____________________________________ JAY L. HIMES Chief Antitrust Bureau Office of the Attorney General of New York 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-8282 -3- FOR DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION: ____________________________________ CHARLES F. RULE Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 639-7300 -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Terms of Service