The future of Microsoft may rest on a few bracketed words in a 1995 anti-trust settlement, words at the centre of the US Justice Department's renewed charges against the software industry leader.
On Monday, MS Janet Reno, the United States' attorney-general, announced that the US government would seek record fines of £1 million a day against Microsoft for its alleged violation of the 1995 "consent decree".
Capturing a wave of antiMicrosoft sentiment that is sweeping through the computer industry, where the software group's control over software standards is strongly resented, Ms Reno attacked Microsoft's business tactics.
Microsoft, she said, was "unlawfully taking advantage of its Windows monopoly to protect and extend that monopoly and undermine consumer choice".
Specifically, Microsoft is accused of forcing PC manufacturers that pre-install the widelyused Windows 95 operating system to also install Microsoft's Internet Explorer on PCs before they are shipped to customers.
This is hardly news to any recent PC buyers. Turn on a new PC and you are instantly greeted with the option of accessing the internet via Microsoft's browser software. Installing the competing program from Netscape Communications is a fiddly process. Moreover, the Netscape software sells for about $50 (£34) while Microsoft does not charge extra for its Internet Explorer.
Not surprisingly, many consumers do not bother to pay for alternative software. Microsoft's share of the browser market is rising fast - up from 30 per cent three months ago to 35 per cent, according to Microsoft's own estimates.
The Justice Department's complaint would seem to be about the so-called "browser wars" - the bitter rivalry between Microsoft and Netscape for leadership in internet-access software. Indeed, the charges are believed to have been prompted by a Netscape complaint to anti-trust regulators.
Yet far more is at stake. The new charges go to the heart of Microsoft's long-standing strategy of expanding and improving its flagship Windows operating system to incorporate an ever-growing set of functions, including Internet access.
"A fundamental principle at Microsoft is that Windows gets better and makes the PC easier to use with each new version," said Mr Bill Gates, chairman and chief executive. "Today people want to use PCs to access the Internet. It would be a great disservice to our customers if Microsoft did not enhance Windows with Internetrelated features."
Declaring that Microsoft would vigorously defend its practice of adding new features to Windows, Mr Bill Neukom, general counsel, said that the 1995 consent decree explicitly allowed Microsoft to do so.
The relevant portion of the settlement stated: "Microsoft shall not enter into any licensing agreement in which the terms of the agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon the licensing of any other . . . product (provided, however, that this provision in and of itself shall not be construed to prohibit Microsoft from developing integrated products)."
The bracketed phrase was hard won in negotiations with the Justice Department, Mr Neukom said. The officials who worked out the agreement with Microsoft understood its meaning, he said, adding that there appeared to be an "unfortunate misunderstanding" among their successors.
Now a federal judge will have to decide the precise meaning of the words. Microsoft is contending that its internet browser is an integral part of Windows. The Justice Department views them as separate products.
To the average PC user, Internet Explorer appears, like any other application program, to be a separate product. It carries a different name and has its own "icon" on the computer screen. Yet Internet Explorer can be configured as the "interface", or opening view of Windows. Moreover, the next version of Windows, due out next year, will fully integrate the two programs.
While the Justice Department's case rests on this narrow issue, it could have far reaching implications for Microsoft, its competitors in the software industry and for consumers. If the Justice Department wins its case, consumers may be forced to purchase browsers separately from PC operating systems. It is difficult to see how this would be to the direct advantage of PC users.
However, Microsoft's competitors, in particular Netscape, have a lot to gain. If Microsoft is forced to "unbundle" Windows and its browser, Netscape's ability to compete will be enhanced. But Netscape's ambitions also go beyond the browser. The company is attempting to parlay its early lead in internet software to create an alternative PC operating system to compete with Windows.
Justice Department officials stressed that they are "not taking sides" in the battle between Microsoft and Netscape.
The issue of "integrated" browsers may not be the end of Microsoft's latest anti-trust problems. Mr Joel Klein, head of the Justice Department's anti-trust division said that in addition to the charges filed on Monday his department was conducting a "wide-ranging investigation to determine whether Microsoft's actions are stifling innovation and consumer choice".
This comes as Mr Ralph Nader, the consumer activist, is mounting a public campaign against Microsoft. He has organised a conference to take place in Washington next month, at which critics will speak out against the company.
The danger for Microsoft is that consumers - as well as its outspoken industry critics - will turn against the company.
Microsoft sent a letter to its customers on Monday seeking to reassure them. "Our efforts are legal and spurring product innovation - which in the end bring you, the consumer, the best possible product at the most attractive price," Microsoft said. It is a message it will no doubt be repeating in the coming months as it defends itself against the latest charges.
