The Microsoft ruling

"Based on the present record…the Government appears to have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits" of its case against Microsoft, Jackson said in his decision in the landmark case.

Microsoft chairman Bill Gates meanwhile refused on Friday to discuss the US court ruling. Gates, who gave a speech to students at Qinghua University in Beijing, refused to make any comment on the decision, and just said that his company’s "Explorer 4.0" internet browser was "doing well".

Microsoft had warned it would also compel computer makers licensed to equip PCs with the Windows 95 operating software to install Microsoft’s latest version of "Explorer" Internet browser beginning in February. Jackson said this raised the possibility that Microsoft could acquire another monopoly in the computer software sector, and ruled this required further study.

"The probability that Microsoft will not only continue to reinforce its operating system monopoly by its licensing practices, but might also acquire yet another monopoly in the Internet browser market, is simply too great to tolerate indefinitely until the issue is finally resolved," the judge wrote.

"Those practices should be abated until it is conclusively established that they are benign," he ruled.

In another section of the decision, he said "the Government has shown that there exists sufficient independent consumer demand for operating systems and Internet access software so that it is efficient for a firm to provide these products separately".

The Justice Department has accused Microsoft of violating laws designed to halt monopolistic practices by requiring computer manufacturers that install its Windows 95 software — the brains of nine out of 10 personal computers — to also install Microsoft’s Explorer Internet browser.

Jackson ruled against the Government in its request that Microsoft be found in contempt of a consent decree, or final judgment, that the company reached with the Justice Department in 1995.

That accord was designed to end a dispute sparked by Justice Department accusations that Microsoft had been engaging in anti-competitive practices.

Jackson found that Microsoft had "provided a reasonable explanation for its understanding that the consent decree did not preclude Microsoft’s insistence that the OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) accept IE (Internet Explorer) as part of Windows 95". But he added that "it does not necessarily follow that Microsoft’s licensing practices are, in fact, in compliance with the final judgment".