Federal Judge Rules Lessig Will Keep Post

A Federal judge this week refused a petition from the Microsoft Corporation that would have removed Professor of Law L. Lawrence Lessig from the position of special master in anti-trust litigation against the software company.

The Redmond, Wash. company had argued that the appointment of a special master was unnecessary and also that the Harvard professor was an inappropriate choice.

Microsoft is currently considering whether to appeal the decision, according to company spokesperson Jim W. Cullanin.

The Judge, Thomas P. Jackson, announced his ruling Wednesday at the end of a two-day hearing related to other matters in the antitrust case, which alleges that Microsoft illegally tried to gain market share in the Internet browser wars.

As special master, Lessig is responsible for proposing "findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the court." He is to report his findings by May 31.

Jackson had appointed Lessig as a special master to sift through the "extensive highly technical evidence" in the case on Dec. 11. Microsoft countered with a petition for his removal in a brief filed on Dec.23.

The U.S. Department of Justice wrote a rebuttal to the motion on Jan. 5, and Microsoft filed its reply to the rebuttal on Monday.

The computer giant asked Lessig to resign his post earlier this month after a series of e-mails between Lessig and Netscape Corporation executives were made public, but the professor declined to step down.

Microsoft alleged that the e-mails revealed Lessig to be a "partisan of Netscape," Microsoft's rival in the Internet Browser wars.

Cullanin, the Microsoft spokesperson, said that the company was unhappy with the Wednesday ruling but would cooperate.

"We're disappointed with the decision," he said. "We believe that the evidence and the items that were presented spoke for themselves and showed bias. But the judge has made a ruling and right now we will work with Professor Lessig as we already have."

Jackson said that Microsoft's allegations that Lessig was biased against the company were "trivial" and said that the company might have "incurred sanctions" had the accusations been made in open court.

"The bases given for those accusa- tions are both trivial and...defamatory, and the Court finds that they were not made in good faith," the ruling said.

At the court's request, Lessig submitted a declaration assuring his impartiality and explaining the context of the allegedly biased comments in his correspondence with the Netscape executives.

Lessig's declaration was not available to The Crimson yesterday, and staff in the professor's office said he is not commenting on the case.

However, The New York Times reported that in the declaration Lessig defended his e-mail correspondence and suggested that Microsoft officials misinterpreted the e-mail messages.

Microsoft had also argued that the appointment of any special master in the case was unconstitutional.

"The blanket reference of this case to a special master is improper under Article III [of the Constitution] because it delegates judicial functions to a private citizen," Microsoft attorneys wrote in their Monday brief.

Jackson responded that Lessig was not judging the case but merely analyzing evidence and making recommendations.

"The reference to a special master of the task of assisting the court...does not...represent any abdication of its Article III authority," he wrote in a memorandum

At the court's request, Lessig submitted a declaration assuring his impartiality and explaining the context of the allegedly biased comments in his correspondence with the Netscape executives.

Lessig's declaration was not available to The Crimson yesterday, and staff in the professor's office said he is not commenting on the case.

However, The New York Times reported that in the declaration Lessig defended his e-mail correspondence and suggested that Microsoft officials misinterpreted the e-mail messages.

Microsoft had also argued that the appointment of any special master in the case was unconstitutional.

"The blanket reference of this case to a special master is improper under Article III [of the Constitution] because it delegates judicial functions to a private citizen," Microsoft attorneys wrote in their Monday brief.

Jackson responded that Lessig was not judging the case but merely analyzing evidence and making recommendations.

"The reference to a special master of the task of assisting the court...does not...represent any abdication of its Article III authority," he wrote in a memorandum