The US government last night refiled its sweeping plan to break Microsoft into two, including technical suggestions from the presiding judge that set the stage for a final ruling in the landmark antitrust case as early as next week.
The government's filing came in the form of an order which District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson could sign and issue, mandating the eventual break-up of Microsoft and restrictions on conduct starting in 90 days.
It was almost identical to the government plan filed late last month, except that it added several minor suggestions from Jackson and corrected several typographical errors.
The government proposal would split Microsoft into one company that manufactures operating systems and a second that makes everything else - notably the dominant Microsoft Web browser.
A break-up of Microsoft would be the harshest antitrust penalty leveled against a US corporation since AT&T agreed to spin off the regional "baby bells" in 1982.
In the case of Microsoft, the judge would delay the breakup until the software giant finished appealing its case.
In the meantime, the company would face restrictions on its conduct starting 90 days after the final judgment is filed - a change from the 30 days in the earlier draft. Microsoft is expected to ask an appeals court to suspend those provisions.
Microsoft said last night that it would delay by three weeks its strategy on the next generation Windows operating system. The company cited the expected court decree as its reason for the delay. News of the filing left Microsoft's share price barely changed at $61 on the Nasdaq market.
Jackson moved into high gear on the case at a hearing earlier this week, which Microsoft lawyers had expected to be the first of many routine hearings on a penalty.
But Jackson surprised all sides by probing and exploring possible ways to break up the company - at one point considering a three-way break-up - before telling the government to get the final order ready for him quickly.
The government was critical of Microsoft's approach to penalties, described as "a cynical ploy calculated to raise diversionary issues."
