The federal judge who ordered the breakup of Microsoft Corp. has taken a further swipe at the company in connection with a discrimination lawsuit against the software giant.
In an order signed Monday, District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson said the antitrust proceedings against Microsoft left him with an impression of "a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and the rules of law that lesser entities must respect."
But Judge Jackson blamed recent criticism of his out-of-court comments by an appeals court reviewing the antitrust case for creating an appearance of personal bias or prejudice and leading to his recusal decision.
Microsoft, which had asked Judge Jackson to step aside in the suit filed by current and former black employees, said his recusal decision was correct but disagreed with his characterization of the company.
"We respectfully disagree with the court's comments, but these issues are before the court of appeals so it would be inappropriate for us to comment beyond that," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said Tuesday.
After a 78-day trial that began Oct. 19, 1998, Judge Jackson found Microsoft holds monopoly power in the market for personal computer operating systems and illegally used that power to maintain it monopoly and try to extend its power into the Web browser market.
On June 7 last year, Judge Jackson ordered that the company be broken up to prevent future antitrust violations, and set various changes in the companies business practices, all of which he suspended pending appeal.
But at two days of oral arguments on Microsoft's appeal last month, a seven-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia expressed skepticism about the merits of the case and sharply criticized Judge Jackson's comments outside the court about the company.
The writer of a book about the case says he interviewed Judge Jackson twice during the trial and the judge compared Microsoft executives' on one occasion to a street gang.
In his recusal order, Judge Jackson says he knew nothing about Microsoft prior to his random assignment in 1995 to a dispute over an agreement with the federal government that led to the 1998 antitrust case brought by the U.S. Justice Department and 20 states.
From late 1997 to the middle of 1999, "I was presented with testimony from numerous 'senior management' officials of Microsoft," he wrote.
"Much of it proved, time and again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, or transparently false," Judge Jackson said.
The Supreme Court had found that opinions held by judges as a result of what they learned in earlier proceedings cannot be characterized as bias or prejudice unless they reflect "deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism," he said.
Judge Jackson said he did not believe his lingering impressions of Microsoft rose to that level.
"I must acknowledge, however, that extra-judicial comments attributed to me, when viewed in light of the public disapproval thereof expressed by the court of appeals ... have created an appearance of personal bias or prejudice," Judge Jackson said.
The discrimination suit alleged the African American employees were repeatedly passed over for promotions, paid less than white employees and subjected to harassment and retaliation when they complained.
Microsoft says it has a zero tolerance policy for bias. "We believe we have treated all of our employees fairly," Mr. Cullinan said.