FOOTNOTES
1Proof that the defendant's conduct was motivated by a desire to prevent other firms from competing on the merits can contribute to a finding that the conduct has had, or will have, the intended, exclusionary effect. See United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 436 n.13 (1978) ("consideration of intent may play an important role in divining the actual nature and effect of the alleged anticompetitive conduct").
2While Microsoft is correct that some courts have also recognized the right of a copyright holder to preserve the "integrity" of artistic works in addition to those rights enumerated in the Copyright Act, the Court nevertheless concludes that those cases, being actions for infringement without antitrust implications, are inapposite to the one currently before it. See, e.g., WGN Continental Broadcasting Co. v. United Video, Inc., 693 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1982); Gilliam v. ABC, Inc., 538 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1976).
3Microsoft contends that Windows and Internet Explorer represent a single "integrated product," and that the relevant market is a unitary market of "platforms for software applications." Microsoft's Proposed Conclusions of Law at 49 n.28.
4In Microsoft II the D.C. Circuit acknowledged it was without benefit of a complete factual record which might alter its conclusion that the "Windows 95/IE package is a genuine integration." 147 F.3d at 952.
5Most of the quantitative evidence was presented in units other than monetary, but numbered the units in millions, whatever their nature.
6Amicus curiae Lawrence Lessig has suggested that a corollary concept relating to the bundling of "partial substitutes" in the context of software design may be apposite as a limiting principle for courts called upon to assess the compliance of these products with antitrust law. This Court has been at pains to point out that the true source of the threat posed to the competitive process by Microsoft's bundling decisions stems from the fact that a competitor to the tied product bore the potential, but had not yet matured sufficiently, to open up the tying product market to competition. Under these conditions, the anticompetitive harm from a software bundle is much more substantial and pernicious than the typical tie. See X Phillip E. Areeda, Einer Elhauge & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶1747 (1996). A company able to leverage its substantial power in the tying product market in order to force consumers to accept a tie of partial substitutes is thus able to spread inefficiency from one market to the next, id. at 232, and thereby "sabotage a nascent technology that might compete with the tying product but for its foreclosure from the market." III Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1746.1d at 495 (Supp. 1999).
7See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720, 16726, 17200 (West 1999); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-27 (1999); D.C. Code § 28-4503 (1996); Fla. Stat. chs. 501.204(1), 542.19 (1999); 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/3 (West 1999); Iowa Code § 553.5 (1997); Kan. Stat. §§ 50-101 et seq. (1994); Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 367.170, 367.175 (Michie 1996); La. Rev. Stat. §§ 51:123, 51:1405 (West 1986); Md. Com. Law II Code Ann. § 11-204 (1990); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2; Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.773 (1989); Minn. Stat. § 325D.52 (1998); N.M. Stat. § 57-1-2 (Michie 1995); N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 340 (McKinney 1998); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75-1.1, 75-2.1 (1999); Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1331.01, 1331.02 (Anderson 1993); Utah Code § 76-10-914 (1999); W.Va. Code § 47-18-4 (1999); Wis. Stat. § 133.03(2) (West 1989 & Supp. 1998).
8See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (West 1999); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-27 (1999); D.C. Code § 28-4503 (1996); Fla. Stat. chs. 501.204(1), 542.19 (1999); 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/3(3) (West 1999); Iowa Code § 553.5 (1997); Kan. Stat. §§ 50-101 et seq. (1994); Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 367.170, 367.175 (Michie 1996); La. Rev. Stat. §§ 51:123, 51:1405 (West 1986); Md. Com. Law II Code Ann. § 11-204(a)(2) (1990); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2; Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.773 (1989); Minn. Stat. § 325D.52 (1998); N.M. Stat. § 57-1-2 (Michie 1995); N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 340 (McKinney 1988); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75-1.1, 75-2.1 (1999); Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1331.01, 1331.02 (Anderson 1993); Utah Code § 76-10-914 (1999); W.Va. Code § 47-18-4 (1999); Wis. Stat. § 133.03(2) (West 1989 & Supp. 1998).
9See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16727, 17200 (West 1999); Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-26, 35-29 (1999); D.C. Code § 28-4502 (1996); Fla. Stat. chs. 501.204(1), 542.18 (1999); 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/3(4) (West 1999); Iowa Code § 553.4 (1997); Kan. Stat. §§ 50-101 et seq. (1994); Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 367.170, 367.175 (Michie 1996); La. Rev. Stat. §§ 51:122, 51:1405 (West 1986); Md. Com. Law II Code Ann. § 11-204(a)(1) (1990); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2; Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.772 (1989); Minn. Stat. § 325D.52 (1998); N.M. Stat. § 57-1-1 (Michie 1995); N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 340 (McKinney 1988); N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75-1.1, 75-2.1 (1999); Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1331.01, 1331.02 (Anderson 1993); Utah Code § 76-10-914 (1999); W.Va. Code § 47-18-3 (1999); Wis. Stat. § 133.03(1) (West 1989 & Supp. 1998).
10The omission of the District of Columbia from this finding was an oversight on the part of the Court; Microsoft obviously conducts business in the District of Columbia as well.