United States v. Microsoft Corp.

In 1994 the United States (the government) (plaintiff) filed an action in federal district court against Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) (defendant) for violating the Sherman Act by engaging in anticompetitive behavior. The government alleged in its complaint that Microsoft had formed a monopoly and improperly engaged in trade-restraining practices. Along with its complaint, the government filed a proposed consent decree and moved for the court to approve the decree. The proposed consent decree detailed a settlement that the government and Microsoft had reached. The district court reviewed the proposed consent decree to ensure that the settlement was aligned with the public interest. The district court judge informed the government and Microsoft that he had previously read a book on Microsoft in which several allegations about Microsoft’s unfair marketing practices were made. The judge inquired whether the government had investigated the allegations, because the government had not included such allegations in its complaint. The judge then denied the government’s motion to approve the decree on the ground that it was not in the public interest because many of the allegations within the book had not been properly addressed. The matter was appealed. Both the government and Microsoft argued that the district court judge had acted beyond his constitutional authority by essentially drafting his own complaint against Microsoft.