Tech Law Journal

Capitol Dome
News, records, and analysis of legislation, litigation, and regulation affecting the computer, internet, communications and information technology sectors

TLJ Links: Home | Calendar | Subscribe | Back Issues | Reference
Other: Thomas | USC | CFR | FR | FCC | USPTO | CO | NTIA | EDGAR


Bristol Technology v. Microsoft

Bristol Technology Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, U.S. District Court, Connecticut, Case No. 398-CV-1567 (JCH).

Nature of the Case. State and federal antitrust action brought by a software developer seeking court ordered access to Microsoft's source code for Windows NT 4.0 and 5.0.

This page was last updated on February 21, 2001.

Plaintiff. Bristol Technology, Inc., is a small privately held software development company based in Danbury, Connecticut.  Bristol develops software that enables computer application programs originally written for Windows operating systems to be converted or recompiled to run on alternative operating systems, such as UNIX, OpenVMS, and OS/390. Its main product is Wind/U. Attorney: O'Melveny and Myers.

Defendant. Microsoft Corporation makes software products, including Windows NT 3.0, 4.0, and 2000 operating systems. Attorney: David Tulchin, Sullivan & Cromwell.

Summary. Microsoft makes, among other things, operating system (OS) software. One line of its OS software is Windows NT. Heretofore, NT has primarily been used on network servers and technical workstations, while Windows 3.X, 95, and 98 has been used by PCs. The OS most commonly used on network servers and technical workstations has been the various versions of UNIX, such as Sun Microsystems' Solaris.

Bristol is a small software developer that makes Wind/U, a product which allows applications written to run on Windows OS to also run on UNIX OS.

Bristol had a contract with Microsoft that commenced in September 1994, and expired in September 1997, under which Microsoft provided Bristol with source code for Windows NT 3.0 and earlier OS software. Microsoft was not obligated under this contract to provide Bristol with Windows NT 4.0 or 5.0 source code, and Microsoft has not provided it to Bristol. Bristol and Microsoft negotiated, but did not reach, a contract to provide 4.0 and 5.0 source code.

Bristol alleges in this suit that Microsoft refuses to provide Bristol with the source code for these newer versions. Microsoft alleges that it has offered these to Bristol, but Bristol has rejected the terms of Microsoft's contract offer. Microsoft further alleges that it has contracted to provide this source code to Bristol's competitor, Mainsoft.

Bristol alleges that Microsoft's refusal to give it Win NT 4.0 and 5.0 source code constitutes a plethora of federal and state antitrust violations. Microsoft's position is that this is a matter of contract law. That is, Microsoft owns Windows NT, and is willing to license access to source code to Bristol, but Bristol has rejected its terms. Microsoft contends that Bristol is trying to use claims of antitrust law violation to obtain a court order that essentially writes a license contract that Bristol could not obtain through arms length negotiations, and which would give it a competitive advantage over its rival, Mainsoft.

Claims for Relief. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges fourteen claims for relief. The first six are based on federal antitrust law. Bristol alleges monopoly leveraging of its alleged monopoly of PC operating systems, refusal to deal in connection with its alleged monopoly in workstation operating systems, refusal to deal in connection with its alleged monopoly in departmental server operating systems, denial of an alleged essential facility, and attempted monopolization of the markets for workstation and departmental server markets.  The Complaint also alleges six violations of Connecticut antitrust law. Finally, the Complaint alleges unfair trade practices and estoppel. The complete list of the claims for relief is as follows:

  • Monopolization of the Personal Computer Operating Systems Market (Monopoly Leveraging).
  • Monopolization of the Technical Workstation Operating Systems Market (Refusal to Deal).
  • Monopolization of the Departmental Server Operating Systems Market (Refusal to Deal).
  • Monopolization (Denial of An Essential Facility To Compete).
  • Attempted Monopolization of the Technical Workstation Operating Systems Market.
  • Attempted Monopolization of the Departmental Server Operating Systems Market.
  • Monopolization of the Personal Computer Operating Systems Market (Monopoly Leveraging) (Conn. General Stats. 35-27)
  • Monopolization of the Technical Workstation Operating Systems Market (Refusal to Deal) (Conn. General Stats. 35-27)
  • Monopolization of the Departmental Server Operating Systems Market (Refusal to Deal) (Conn. General Stats. 35-27)
  • Monopolization (Essential Facilities) (Conn. General Stats. 35-27)
  • Attempted Monopolization Technical Workstation Operating Systems Markets (Conn. General Stats. 35-27)
  • Attempted Monopolization of the Departmental Server Operating Systems Markets (Conn. General Stats. 35-27)
  • Unfair Trade Practices.
  • Estoppel.

Bristol also seeks a preliminary injunction ordering Microsoft to give to Bristol source code for Windows NT 4.0 and 5.0.

Status.  The Complaint was filed on August 18, 1998. Bristol and Microsoft filed a pre-trial dispositive motions. A hearing on Bristol's motion was held on October 14, 15, 19, 20, and 28. Judge Hall denied all motions on December 30, 1998. The case went to trial in June, 1999. On July 17, 1999 the jury returned a verdict for Microsoft on all antitrust counts. It found for Bristol on a state unfair trade practices count, and awarded $1.00.


Chronology with Links to Pleadings and other Documents

  • 8/18/98. Plaintiff filed Complaint, Motion for Preliminary Injunction (MPI), and Supporting Pleadings.  (Complaint | Preliminary Injunction Memorandum | Story.)
  • 9/25/98. Microsoft filed Opposition to Bristol's MPI. (Opposition Brief | Story.)
  • 10/5/98. Bristol filed reply to Microsoft's Opposition to MPI.  (Reply Memorandum | Declaration of Brian Croll (SUNW) | Story.)
  • 10/5/98. State of Connecticut filed Amicus Curiae Brief in support of Bristol.
  • 10/8/98. Microsoft filed Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment. (Memorandum)
  • 10/8/98. Microsoft filed Supplemental Opposition to MPI.
  • 10/14, 15, 19, 20, 28.  Hearing on Bristol's MPI.  (Story.)
  • 10/28/98.  Bristol filed Declaration of Keith Blackwell regarding Microsoft-MainSoft contract, under seal.
  • 10/29/98. Bristol filed Opposition to Microsoft's Motion for Summary Judgment/Dismissal.
  • 12/30/98. Judge Hall issued ruling denying Bristol's motion for preliminary injunction. (Decision | Story.)
  • 12/30/98.  Judge Hall issued ruling denying Microsoft's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. (Decision | Story.)
  • 3/3/99. Bristol filed its witness list for trial. (See, Bristol statement.)
  • 6/2/99. Beginning of trial.
  • 7/17/99. Jury returns verdict for Microsoft on all antitrust claims. Jury returns verdict for Bristol on one count of violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA), and awards compensatory damages of $1. (See, TLJ story.)
  • Bristol files two post verdict motions: a motion for award of punitive damages on the CUPTA, and a motion for an injunction.
  • 8/31/00. Judge Hall issued a ruling giving Bristol an award of punitive damages of $1,000,000 and an injunction.
  • 2/21/01. The parties announced a settlement, but did not release its terms.

Microsoft

Microsoft's Attorneys:

  • Lead Counsel: SULLIVAN & CROMWELL.
    David B. Tulchin, Michael T. Tomaino, Jr., Marc De Leeuw, and Elizabeth P. Martin.
    125 Broad Street, New York, NY, 10004-2498.
    (212) 558-4000.
  • Local Counsel: DAY BERRY & HOWARD.
    Stefan R. Underhill
    One Canterbury Green, Stamford, Connecticut, 06901.
    (203) 977-7320.
  • In House Counsel: Steven J. Aeschbacher.
    One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington, 98052.
    (425) 936-8080

Bristol Technology, Inc.

Bristol's Website:

  • Home Page.
  • Lawsuit Information Page.  (This page includes most of the major pleadings and affidavits filed by Bristol, and links to select press coverage of the case.)

Contact:

Bristol's Attorneys:

  • John L. Altieri, Jr., O'Melveny & Myers.
    c/o Bristol Technology, Inc.
    39 Old Ridgebury Road, Danbury, CT 06810-5113
    (203) 798-1007
  • Patrick Lynch, Esq., James V. Selna, and Carl R. Schenker, Jr., Esq.
    O'Melveny & Myers
    400 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071
    (213) 430-6000
  • Anthony L. Clapes, Esq., Technology Law Network
    3077 Ka'ohinani Drive, Honolulu, HI 96807
    (808) 595-0128

State of Connecticut, Amicus Curiae

Attorneys:

  • Steven M. Rutstein, Rachel O. Davis, and Mark F. Kohler
    110 Sherman Street, Hartford, CT 06105
    Tel: (860) 808-5400.  Fax: (860) 808-5593
 

Subscriptions | FAQ | Notices & Disclaimers | Privacy Policy
Copyright 1998-2008 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All rights reserved.
Phone: 202-364-8882. P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.