A provision of Microsoft's settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ), requiring the company to offer technical documentation to competitors and partners, has been extended two years, to 2009, but the DoJ declined to pursue Google's complaint about search in Internet Explorer. In addition, Microsoft settled two more antitrust cases and continued its patent battles.

DoJ Update, Antitrust, and Patents

The following developments in Microsoft's legal situation have occurred since Mar. 2006:

DoJ report. After a request by the DoJ, Microsoft has agreed to extend the life of the Microsoft Communication Protocol Program (MCPP) until 2009. The MCPP is part of the consent decree that ended the DoJ case in Nov. 2002 and allows companies to license technical protocols that Windows client PCs use to communicate with Windows-based servers. In a May 2006 status report to the judge overseeing the case, the DoJ claimed that some of Microsoft's documentation has been inadequate and that a "new approach" is needed. Although it agreed to the extension, Microsoft noted that 31 companies have now taken part in the MCPP and have used the protocols in more than a dozen released products. The other provisions of the consent decree, such as the requirement that Microsoft price Windows consistently and equally for the top 20 OEMs, are still set to expire in Nov. 2007.

In the same status report, the DoJ declined to investigate a complaint that Microsoft is illegally leveraging its Windows monopoly to boost its position in Internet search. Google complained that Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7 (IE7) Web browser, now in beta and slated for inclusion in Windows Vista, has an Internet search pane that automatically defaults to Microsoft's Internet search engine. However, the DoJ found that because IE7 honors search defaults previously set by OEMs or customers and Microsoft's defaults are reasonably easy to change, there was "no basis for concern."

In addition, the DoJ noted that a complaint filed by OEMs over the initial boot experience in Vista has been resolved—Microsoft apparently offered a compromise that will allow the OEMs more control over this experience, which OEMs sometimes use to promote products and services (usually from partners), or to differentiate their PCs from competitors'.

Antitrust settlements. Microsoft has agreed to settle two antitrust suits related to overcharging: one involving consumers in New York State, and one filed by the governments of several California municipalities. As it has done in more than a dozen similar overcharging settlements, Microsoft will issue vouchers good for the purchase of computer hardware or software from a variety of vendors, based on the amount of affected Microsoft software the customer purchased during a particular time period. For example, New York residents can receive a voucher worth US$12 for each copy of Windows or US$5 for each copy of Office, Excel, or Word purchased between May 19, 1994 and Dec. 31, 2004. The vouchers could be worth up to US$350 million in New York and US$70 million for the California municipalities; the New York settlement also requires Microsoft to donate vouchers to New York school districts if the amount of vouchers claimed by consumers is less than US$225 million. Both agreements are subject to approval by the presiding judges.

Patent news. Microsoft faced verdicts in two patent-infringement cases related to its product activation technology, filed a counterclaim in an ongoing patent battle with Lucent, and faced a new intellectual property claim from Symantec.

• In Mar. 2006, a federal appeals judge upheld a Mar. 2005 verdict that Microsoft's product activation technology, used to prevent piracy, does not infringe upon a patent held by Houston patent attorney Kenneth Nash
• In Apr. 2006, a Texas jury agreed that Microsoft's product activation technology violated two patents held by David Colvin, founder of z4 Technologies, and ordered Microsoft to pay US$115 million. Microsoft, which claims that Colvin deliberately withheld information about other companies' similar technologies when he applied for his patents, will probably appeal. The jury also ordered Autodesk, makers of AutoCAD, to pay Colvin US$13 million.
• In Apr. 2006, Lucent filed a suit alleging that Microsoft's Xbox 360 game console violates a Lucent patent for video decoding technology; Microsoft countersued in May, claiming that Lucent's patent is invalid and alleging that Lucent violates 10 of its patents. Often, such cases are settled by entering into cross-licensing agreements.
• In May 2006, Symantec filed a suit in district court accusing Microsoft of breach of contract and intellectual property violations, saying that Microsoft licensed technology from a Veritas product called Volume Manager, which is used to manage data storage on servers, then used the knowledge gained from this license to develop competing products and to incorporate similar technology into Windows. Symantec, which bought Veritas in July 2005, also alleges that Microsoft breached the companies' contract by refusing Symantec access to its source code, in an attempt to hide its wrongdoing.