MICROSOFT APPEAL TICKING.

In a series of interviews given to the press, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruminated on why the Microsoft case should go directly to the Supreme Court rather than to the Court of Appeals. He recited its overall importance to the American economy, but conceded that the Supreme Court might wish to have the expertise of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and the record that would be developed in such an interim appeal, available before deciding this very important case.

Microsoft, of course, would like the case to be heard before the USCA, both for the reason that the Court has in the past shown itself more receptive to Microsoft's arguments, and because it would have the opportunity to expand its showing on certain very significant issues. On the other hand, the government wishes to go directly to the Supreme Court reciting the importance of the case, and wishing to avoid the USCA for the same reason that Microsoft wants to go there.

On a historical basis, antitrust cases went straight from the trial court to the Supreme Court up until 1975, but since that date appeals to the intervening Court of Appeals have been permitted. Jackson's decision, and the business restrictions that it proposes to impose upon Microsoft has been stayed pending appellate review either at the USCA or the Supreme Court. It is not certain that the Supreme Court will hear the case, and there remains a reasonable likelihood that it will seek to avail itself of the additional insights provided by the USCA review.