Microsoft lost another round in its antitrust battle Thursday when a judge denied the company's motion to limit introduction of new evidence by the government.
US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said he would not act to exclude any new evidence from the government at this time, but indicated he would rule on a point-by-point basis during the trial, which is scheduled to begin 15 October.
The Justice Department and 20 states went after Microsoft, alleging that its 90 percent share of the market for operating-system software amounts to a monopoly, and that the company illegally abused the power of that monopoly.
Microsoft lawyers argued against the introduction of new evidence Thursday, saying that the government’s case has expanded beyond its original focus.
The software giant sought to exclude evidence it called "extraneous," which introduced competitors other than Netscape Communications -- its primary rival in the browser market -- to the government's case.
Specifically, it relates to Microsoft's alleged strong-armed business tactics with Intel, Apple, Real Networks, Sun Microsystems, Caldera, and Bristol Technologies.
The government is "essentially attempting to combine a number of separate lawsuits and investigations with this case," said a statement from Microsoft.
The government countered that the new issues showed a pattern of practice and evidence of monopoly power. "That's what this case is about and the evidence supports that," said Gina Talamona, a Justice Department spokeswoman.
Microsoft was also expected to request another delay this week in order to address the new allegations.
In a statement Wednesday, the company said it "cannot prepare its defense to these new allegations in the month remaining before trial. Nor can Microsoft address these allegations at trial with its allotted 12 witnesses."
"The subject of a postponement was not an issue at the hearing today" said Microsoft spokeswoman Caroline Boren.
Microsoft's Mark Murray added that the company was only "ready to go to trial on the issues the government brought up in May after nearly two years of investigation."
It is inappropriate, he said, for the government to try to expand its case at the last minute by bring a number of issues that were never part of the original case.
