New York v. Microsoft

United States District Court for the District of Columbia · Evidence

Evidenceconsent decreefinal judgmentmodificationextensionretained jurisdictionRule 60(b)(5)changed circumstances

Facts

The Final Judgments arose from a state antitrust action against Microsoft and included a forward-looking provision, Section III.E, requiring Microsoft to make certain communications protocols and related technical documentation available to licensees. Although that documentation was expected to be available by 2003, more than five years later it still was not available in a certifiably complete, accurate, and useable form. Because of that delay, the court found that the Final Judgments' provisions had not yet operated together as the comprehensive remedy originally contemplated. The moving states therefore sought to extend the judgments, arguing that the unforeseen delay had prevented the decrees from achieving their intended procompetitive effect.

Issue

Whether the district court had authority to extend the Final Judgments, and if so, whether the extreme delay in implementing Section III.E justified extending the expiring provisions of the judgments. A further question was whether the court should extend the judgments only to November 12, 2009, or all the way to November 12, 2012.

Rule

A district court may modify or extend a final judgment or consent decree through its expressly retained jurisdiction and its equitable authority, largely embodied in Rule 60(b)(5). Modification is warranted where significant changed circumstances, including unforeseen obstacles that make the decree unworkable or detrimental to the public interest, prevent the decree from achieving its intended result; similarly, at the request of the party that sought equitable relief, a decree may be tightened when it has not achieved its principal objects. Any modification must be suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A federal court in Chicago entered an antitrust final judgment against North Harbor Systems, a software firm, requiring certain interoperability disclosures and stating that the court retained jurisdiction to modify the judgment and issue further orders on a party's application. Four years later, the plaintiff states move to extend several expiring provisions because one core disclosure obligation has not become usable as contemplated.

What is the strongest basis for the court's authority to consider the requested extension?

Explanation. The majority held that authority to modify or extend a final judgment came from two independent sources: the decree's expressly retained jurisdiction and the court's equitable power, largely embodied in Rule 60(b)(5). A specific extension clause was not exclusive, and a new liability trial was unnecessary. (Derived from New York v. Microsoft (n.d.).)