The US government yesterday maintained its call for Microsoft to be sliced in two and said the software giant should be given no additional time to respond to any such court-ordered break-up.

The Justice Department stated its final position in a filing presented to US District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who is expected to rule on Microsoft's fate soon after the company responds on Wednesday to the latest government submission.

Commenting on a government recommendation that it be split into two entities to correct antitrust violations, Microsoft last week asked the court for 12 months - rather than the four proposed by the government - to prepare a plan for what it called its "divestiture."

But in its response yesterday, the Justice Department argued that "it is in the public interest that the remedy contemplated by the Final Judgment be implemented as soon as possible, and the time periods by the plaintiffs are adequate to perform the specified tasks."

The government has suggested that once Microsoft puts forward its own break-up plan, at the end of the four-month period, the Justice Department would have 60 days to submit objections, after which the company would have 30 days to respond.

Microsoft had proposed 90 days for government comments and another 60 days for its response.

The government also rejected a Microsoft request that the court's final ruling on sanctions against the company remain in effect for four rather than the 10 years called for by the Department of Justice.

"Ten years is customary in antitrust cases, and in any event four years is too short a time for the Final Judgment to remain in effect . . . Microsoft has had the dominant position in the operating systems business for at least a decade and under the circumstances there is no sound justification for entering a decree of shorter duration," the department maintained.

Elsewhere in its filing, the government did agree to certain changes in wording sought by Microsoft, notably accepting the company's argument that its break-up should be referred to as a "divestiture" rather than a "reorganisation".

"The government's proposal makes only cosmetic changes to a vague and ambiguous plan that will cause significant harm to consumers, the high-tech industry and our economy," said Microsoft spokesman Mr James Cullinan.