1 The term “Plaintiffs” includes the United States of America, Plaintiff in United States v.
Microsoft, CA No. 98-1232 (CKK), and the Plaintiffs in New York, et. al. v. Microsoft, CA No.
98-1233 (CKK) — the States of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin (the “New York Group”), and the States of California,
Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, and the District of
Columbia (the “California Group”).
2 See Supplemental Joint Status Report on Microsoft’s Compliance with the Final
Judgments, at 8 (filed Nov. 18, 2005).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
Next Court Deadline:
February 8, 2006
Joint Status Report
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO MICROSOFT’S SUPPLEMENTAL STATUS
REPORT ON MICROSOFT’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE FINAL JUDGMENTS
At the November 30, 2005 Status Conference, the Court approved the proposal by
Plaintiffs1 and Microsoft that Microsoft file a monthly report describing the status of its parser
development project and detailing its cooperation with the prototype implementation and
validation projects run by the Technical Committee (“TC”).2 Microsoft filed the first such report
on January 17, 2006. In this response, Plaintiffs provide additional information on two matters
relating to Sections III and IV of Microsoft’s report to ensure that the Court has all of the relevant
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION
3 See Joint Status Report on Microsoft’s Compliance with the Final Judgments, at 4 (filed
Oct. 19, 2005) (reporting that Microsoft met the SLGs 100% of the time from their adoption in
mid-July through the date of filing).
4 Based on our discussions with Microsoft, Plaintiffs had understood that Microsoft
would include this detailed information about the SLGs in its report. Plaintiffs