Jim Cullinan Quotations

We're back at the table, we're happy to be back at the table, and hope to reach a mutually beneficial conclusion.

We're pleased that these cases have been put together in a more efficient manner and look forward to presenting arguments to Judge Motz.

We look forward to working with Judge Posner. We think this is potentially a very positive step toward resolving the case.

It clearly reveals one important thing that the government is trying to do, which is avoid the Court of Appeals in every possible way.

I think Sun's primary business strategy these days is to try and file as many court cases against Microsoft as possible. I think our only point is that Sun should try and focus on making their technology work and less on trying to bring new lawsuits against Microsoft.

Our position is that we will address the violations that the court found, that's what we'll do tomorrow. There's several things that are being filed tomorrow, not just a proposed remedy. This isn't just about the proposed remedy, it's about the process of moving ahead, it's about our objections to the government's proposal.

Microsoft doesn't sell products directly to consumers. Consumers go through equipment makers and re-sellers, so it all depends on how they got it.

We believe this is a fair and reasonable schedule, and we look forward to presenting our arguments to the court. We are confident of our case on appeal and believe that the district court's judgment will be reversed due to the wide array of legal, factual and procedural errors.

We are complying and cooperating with the government to provide them with any information they need and request. This is a very narrow legal request and we believe there are no legal issues here that should be of any concern, but we are working to address any concerns the government may have.

We work very hard with companies and ISPs (Internet service providers) to ensure that their applications work great on Windows. That doesn't mean we can't compete with them, but we understand we have to do both.

We think we are going to win whichever place we go, but with the huge record this case contains and the huge number of procedural, factual, and legal errors committed, we think the appeals court would be a more appropriate venue for the first phase.

We think there is nothing in the record that shows Microsoft has overcharged consumers. It's the exact opposite of what Microsoft's business model has been. Every market Microsoft has gone into has resulted in lower prices.

We believe Sun's legal strategy is shortsighted because we believe it limits choice among software developers to get the best Java implementation.

The government is making good points from a public-relations perspective but a number of points haven't been touched.

The government has only made cosmetic changes to its vague and ambiguous proposal. Their plan remains unprecedented, excessive, and harmful. The exercise of the past few days does not substitute in any way for a legitimate process, in which Microsoft could have challenged the government's assumptions and assertions related to its unprecedented breakup plan and draconian regulations.

The government's proposal does not change the fact that breaking Microsoft up will be bad for consumers, bad for the high-tech industry and bad for the economy.

The government's petition is certainly questionable about the rationale for expediting this case directly to the Supreme Court. Microsoft does not believe that the government should try to evade the Court of Appeals.

The government asked for the conference call in order to get more time. The government wants more time because they realize how vague, ambiguous, and poorly written their proposal is after reading our filing yesterday.

While there obviously will be future Windows products, we cannot confirm specifics at this time. There are future products in development.

We will always be interested in a fair and reasonable settlement, but the government is just posturing with this. The government is saying that as long as we agree to whatever extreme proposals the court signed, they would be willing to settle the case.

We don't think we have overcharged, given that our operating system sells for less than those of our competitors, which have fewer features and are less popular. While our prices have remained static, we have continued to add features and functionality.

We are very interested in reaching some kind of conclusion. We want to put this behind us, and we are looking for a fair and reasonable settlement.

We have designed Windows XP specifically to meet the needs of today's consumer and to unleash the power and potential of the PC.

There's nothing in the court of appeals decision or the original decision that supports the contention that Microsoft overcharged consumers. We believe that there is no validity to these suggestions. And we believe so far that we have been successful in many of the private class-action lawsuits.

This does not change the fact that this remedy is harmful and damaging to consumers, the industry and our economy.

It's surprising that they took 17 pages to respond to our two-paragraph request for a stay from the trial court. These requests are normally pro-forma. The real request for a stay is filed at the appeals court level.

It's unfortunate but not surprising that the government has filed a document filled with rhetoric in its attempt to defend a very extreme remedy proposal. Beyond the rhetoric, we do not believe there is any basis for these kinds of excessive actions which would significantly harm consumers, the high-tech industry, and the economy.

It's unfortunate that the government is playing these kinds of procedural games which are only designed to inject complexity and delay into the process of resolving this case.