(continued from previous page)

The interpretation that Microsoft advances most strongly suffers mirror-image defects: it lacks much logical sense and it fails to fit the decree's setting, the disposition of the Novell complaint. Microsoft stresses s IV(E)(i)'s "integrated prod- ucts" proviso, saying that the addition of any feature to an operating system, as by simply putting the disk containing a compatible application in the same box with the operating system disk and requiring an OEM to install both, creates an integrated product--unless Microsoft also licenses the feature on a stand-alone basis "in the OEM channel."

This interpretation neatly matches the failure of the De- partment's theory to account for the permissibility of Win- dows 95: Microsoft's reading would provide zero relief to Novell, for it would allow Microsoft to bundle MS-DOS with Windows 3.11 as long as it did not license MS-DOS separate- ly to OEMs. In short, the Department's reading does not permit Windows 95, and Microsoft's does not prohibit a bundle of Windows 3.11 and MS-DOS. Neither can be the correct interpretation of a provision that was intended to do both.

Curiously, in both parties' readings Microsoft's behavior determines the permissibility of conditioned licensing. This would be no defect if the behavior were in some way relevant to the economic principles of tie-ins. But it is not. The Department offers no theory as to how a seller's abstaining from separate marketing of the tied good might blunt the possible anticompetitive effects of bundling.10 It seems espe- cially beside the point where the goods are complements used in fixed proportions. A monopolist who ties two such goods has no obvious reason to market the tied good separately: since all buyers of the tying good will also take the tied good, the residual market for the tied good will be minimal. If the

__________
view of what is forbidden; one possible explanation might be that functionality works as an initial screen for defining products, but one that is trumped by the "integrated products" proviso.

10 The hospital in Jefferson Parish surely did not offer the tied good (anesthesia) separately from the tying good (surgery), but this fact played no role in the Court's decision.

concern is that the tie-in makes it more difficult for competi- tors to enter the market for the tying good (because they must also offer the tied good), see Grappone, Inc. v. Subaru of New England, 858 F.2d 792, 795-96 (1st Cir. 1988) (Breyer, J.), separate marketing of the tied good actually mitigates the posited harm by facilitating new entry into the market for the tying good. Thus both readings allow legitimation by behav- ior that is either irrelevant or actively harmful.

We think it quite possible, however, to find a construction of s IV(E)(i) that is consistent with the antitrust laws and accomplishes the parties' evident desires on entering the decree. The Department and DG IV were concerned with the alleged anticompetitive effects of tie-ins. Microsoft's goal was to preserve its freedom to design products that consum- ers would like. Antitrust scholars have long recognized the undesirability of having courts oversee product design, and any dampening of technological innovation would be at cross- purposes with antitrust law. Thus, a simple way to harmon- ize the parties' desires is to read the integration proviso of s IV(E)(i) as permitting any genuine technological inte- gration, regardless of whether elements of the integrated package are marketed separately.

This reading requires us, of course, to give substantive content to the concept of integration. We think that an "integrated product" is most reasonably understood as a product that combines functionalities (which may also be marketed separately and operated together) in a way that offers advantages unavailable if the functionalities are bought separately and combined by the purchaser.

The point of the test is twofold and may be illustrated by its application to the paradigm case of the Novell complaint and the subsequent release of Windows 95. First, "inte- gration" suggests a degree of unity, something beyond merely placing disks in the same box. If an OEM or end user (referred to generally as "the purchaser") could buy separate products and combine them himself to produce the "integrat- ed product," then the integration looks like a sham. If Microsoft had simply placed the disks for Windows 3.11 and MS-DOS in one package and covered it with a single license agreement, it would have offered purchasers nothing they could not get by buying the separate products and combining them on their own.11

Windows 95, by contrast, unites the two functionalities in a way that purchasers could not; it is not simply a graphical user interface running on top of MS-DOS. Windows 95 is integrated in the sense that the two functionalities--DOS and graphical interface--do not exist separately: the code that is required to produce one also produces the other. Of course one can imagine that code being sold on two different disks, one containing all the code necessary for an operating system, the other with all the code necessary for a graphical interface. But as the code in the two would largely overlap, it would be odd to speak of either containing a discrete functionality. Rather, each would represent a disabled version of Windows 95. The customer could then "repair" each by installing them both on a single computer, but in such a case it would not be meaningful to speak of the customer "combining" two prod- ucts. Windows 95 is an example of what Professor Areeda calls "physical or technological interlinkage that the customer cannot perform." X Areeda, Antitrust Law s 1746b at 227, 228 (1996).

__________
11 The same analysis would apply to peripherals. If, for example, Microsoft tried to bundle its mouse with the operating system, it would have to show that the mouse/operating system package worked better if combined by Microsoft than it would if combined by OEMs. This is quite different from showing that the mouse works better with the operating system than other mice do. Com- pare Sep. Op. at 1-2. See X Areeda, Antitrust Law p 1746b. Problems seem unlikely to arise with peripherals, because their physical existence makes it easier to identify the act of combination. It seems unlikely that a plausible claim could be made that a mouse and an operating system were integrated in the sense that neither could be said to exist separately. An operating system used with a different mouse does not seem like a different product. But Windows 95 without IE's code will not boot, J.A. 1623, and adding a rival browser will not fix this. If the add/remove utility is run to hide the IE 4 technologies, Windows 95 reverts to an earlier version, OEM service release ("OSR") 2.0. J.A. 1660-61.