The following is the full text of a federal appeals court ruling overturning an injunction prohibiting Microsoft from requiring computer makers to carry its Internet Explorer browser with Windows 95:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued April 21, 1998
Decided June 23, 1998

No. 97-5343

United States of America, Appellee

v.

Microsoft Corporation, Appellant

Consolidated with 98-5012

---------

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 94cv01564)

Richard J. Urowsky argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were John L. Warden, Steven L. Holley, Richard C. Pepperman, II, Andrew C. Hruska, James R. Weiss, William H. Neukom and David A. Heiner, Jr.

A. Douglas Melamed, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the briefs were Joel I. Klein, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine G. O'Sullivan and Mark S. Popofsky, Attorneys.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of California, James E. Ryan, Attorney General of Illinois, Carla J. Stovall, Attor- ney General of Kansas, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana, Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attor- ney General of Nevada, Tom Udall, Attorney General of New Mexico, and W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, members of the Bar of this Court, were on the brief of certain States as amici curiae, with whom appeared the various other Attorneys General of the participating States.

Before: Wald, Williams and Randolph, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Williams.

Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge Wald.

Williams, Circuit Judge: The district court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting Microsoft Corporation from requiring computer manufacturers who license its oper- ating system software to license its internet browser as well. In granting the preliminary injunction the court also referred the government's motion for a permanent injunction to a special master. Microsoft appeals the preliminary injunction and applies for a writ of mandamus revoking the reference to a master. We find that the district court erred procedurally in entering a preliminary injunction without notice to Microsoft and substantively in its implicit construction of the consent decree on which the preliminary injunction rested. We also grant the petition for mandamus and direct the district court to revoke or revise its reference.