Highlights From The Microsoft-DOJ Ruling

You can read the complete ruling here. Following are some of the remedy-specific conclusions from Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling:

* Rejects the third-party licensing portion that would permit third parties to "customize" the appearance of Windows to reflect their input.

* Microsoft cannot restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from installing an icon, menu entry, shortcut, product, or service related to non-Microsoft middleware. However, Microsoft will be able to impose non-discriminatory limits on the specific areas in which icons can be displayed.

* Microsoft cannot impose license restrictions on the ability of OEMs to insert offers from Internet access providers during the initial boot sequence.

* Non-Microsoft applications can be automatically launched upon completion of the initial boot sequence even if Microsoft does not choose to launch automatically a competing middleware program.

* Microsoft will be required to alter Windows so that OEMs and end users can disable end-user access to some Windows functionality. However, the company will not be forced to remove code from Windows related to such functions.

* Microsoft cannot retaliate or threaten retaliation against OEMs who support alternative middleware or operating systems. However, the company can award "market development allowances, programs or other discounts" to OEMs, and can terminate an OEM's Windows license without first offering at least two opportunities to make changes.

* Microsoft cannot retaliate against software and hardware vendors that support competing operating systems, nor can it sign agreements with ISVs which force the ISV to agree to not support non-Microsoft software.

* Microsoft will have to disclose APIs and communications protocols which allow interoperation with Windows. However, internal interfaces not offering a competitive benefit need not be disclosed. Microsoft can charge "reasonable" royalties for such information.

* Both the states' proposed "special master" and Microsoft's proposed "technical committee" will not be required. Instead, the nine states will be responsible for monitoring Microsoft's compliance.

* The states' proposal that a "compliance officer" who serves as a high-level Microsoft employee with significant autonomy and independence is accepted. But that compliance officer will obtain a certification of understanding and compliance only from Microsoft's officers and directors.