Opinion ID: 185418
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Microsoft's justifications for integration

Text: 100 Microsoft proffers no justification for two of the three challenged actions that it took in integrating IE into Windows--excluding IE from the Add/Remove Programs utility and commingling browser and operating system code. Although Microsoft does make some general claims regarding the benefits of integrating the browser and the operating system, see, e.g., Direct Testimony of James Allchin p 94, reprinted in 5 J.A. at 3321 (Our vision of deeper levels of technical integration is highly efficient and provides substantial benefits to customers and developers.), it neither specifies nor substantiates those claims. Nor does it argue that either excluding IE from the Add/Remove Programs utility or commingling code achieves any integrative benefit. Plaintiffs plainly made out a prima facie case of harm to competition in the operating system market by demonstrating that Microsoft's actions increased its browser usage share and thus protected its operating system monopoly from a middleware threat and, for its part, Microsoft failed to meet its burden of showing that its conduct serves a purpose other than protecting its operating system monopoly. Accordingly, we hold that Microsoft's exclusion of IE from the Add/Remove Programs utility and its commingling of browser and operating system code constitute exclusionary conduct, in violation of 2. 101 As for the other challenged act that Microsoft took in integrating IE into Windows--causing Windows to override the user's choice of a default browser in certain circumstances--Microsoft argues that it has valid technical reasons. Specifically, Microsoft claims that it was necessary to design Windows to override the user's preferences when he or she invokes one of a few out of the nearly 30 means of accessing the Internet. Appellant's Opening Br. at 82. According to Microsoft: 102 The Windows 98 Help system and Windows Update feature depend on ActiveX controls not supported by Navigator, and the now-discontinued Channel Bar utilized Microsoft's Channel Definition Format, which Navigator also did not support. Lastly, Windows 98 does not invoke Navigator if a user accesses the Internet through My Computer or Windows Explorer because doing so would defeat one of the purposes of those features-enabling users to move seamlessly from local storage devices to the Web in the same browsing window. 103 Id. (internal citations omitted). The plaintiff bears the burden not only of rebutting a proffered justification but also of demonstrating that the anticompetitive effect of the challenged action outweighs it. In the District Court, plaintiffs appear to have done neither, let alone both; in any event, upon appeal, plaintiffs offer no rebuttal whatsoever. Accordingly, Microsoft may not be held liable for this aspect of its product design. 104