Even accepting the Court's findings of fact, plaintiffs still have not satisfied their burden under the governing law on any of their claims. The brief also cites several key findings of fact which show that Microsoft's integration of Web browsing software into Windows benefited millions of consumers. While the Court found that Microsoft had entered into a number of preferential distribution and promotion contracts with Internet service providers, Internet content providers, online services, and other companies, Microsoft's brief argues that these findings do not meet the legal test for foreclosure. Indeed, because plaintiffs offered no evidence at trial on this point, the Court made no findings as to it. While the government argues that Microsoft's actions may have made it more difficult for Netscape to utilize certain channels of distribution, Microsoft cites numerous cases that demonstrates that Microsoft's actions were well within the bounds of competition defined by the law.
Antitrust laws require no more.
Paddock Publications, Inc. v. The brief outlines several other key factual and legal points related to the foreclosure issue, including the fact that all of Microsoft's preferential agreements allowed partners to distribute some Netscape software, the fact that all of Microsoft's agreements were of relatively short duration, and the fact that Netscape's usage continued to grow dramatically during the period Microsoft had supposedly foreclosed Netscape's distribution. The government contends that Microsoft's OEM licensing agreements illegally prevent computer manufacturers from modifying the first screen that a user sees when Windows launches. Because they impose no restraints that do not already exist by virtue of federal copyright law, the provisions do not violate the antitrust laws. With regard to the government's specific claim that Microsoft should be required to allow computer manufacturers to replace or alter the Windows first screen, the landmark 1976 Gilliam v. ABC case established that unauthorized changes in a copyrighted work constitute infringement.