(continued from previous page)

States' lawsuit against Microsoft

(continued)
XXIII. ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF- FLORIDA PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of Florida repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of Florida Statutes, ?? 501.24, 501.2075, 542.18, 542.19, 542.21-.23.

XXIV. TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - ILLINOIS PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of Illinois repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740 ILCS 10/1.et seq

XXV. THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - IOWA PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of Iowa repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of the Iowa Competition Law, Iowa Code Chapter 553.

XXVI. FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - KANSAS PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of Kansas repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 104 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of the Kansas Statutes Annotated ?? 501 et seq., 50-623 et seq.

XXVII. FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - KENTUCKY PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of Kentucky repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of K.R.S. 367.175.

XXVIII. SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - LOUISIANA PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of Louisiana repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of La. R. S. 51:122 et seq..

XXIX. SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - MARYLAND PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of Maryland repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 104 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of the Maryland Antitrust Act, Md. Com. Law Code Ann. ?? 11-201, et seq.

XXX. EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - MICHIGAN PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of Michigan repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA), MCL 445-771 et seq.

XXXI. NINETEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - MINNESOTA PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of Minnesota repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of the Minnesota Antitrust Act. ?? 325D.49 - 325D.66 (1996).

XXXII. TWENTIETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - NEW MEXICO PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of New Mexico repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices of Microsoft were in violation of sections 57-1-1 and 57-1-2 of the New Mexico Antitrust Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. ?? 57-1-1 to 57-1-15.

XXXIII. TWENTY-FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF - NEW YORK PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of New York repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law ?? 340 et seq. (McKinney 1988).

XXXIV. TWENTY-SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF - NORTH CAROLINA PENDENT CLAIM

Plaintiff State of North Carolina repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of N.C.G.S. ?? 75-1, -1.1, -2, and -2.1.

XXXV. TWENTY-THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF - OHIO PENDENT CLAIM

Plaintiff State of Ohio repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 104 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of Ohio Rev. Code ?? 1331.01, et seq.

XXXVI. TWENTY-FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - SOUTH CAROLINA PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of South Carolina repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of South Carolina Code of Laws ?? 39-3-10 et seq. and ?? 39-5-10 et seq.

XXXVII. TWENTY-FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - UTAH PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of Utah repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of the Utah Antitrust Act Utah Code Ann. ?? 76-10-911, et seq.

XXXVIII. TWENTY-SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - WEST VIRGINIA PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of West Virginia repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein.

The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust Act, W. Va. Code ?? 47-18-1, et seq., and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. Va. Code ?? 46A-1-101, et seq.

XXXIX. TWENTY-SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF - WISCONSIN PENDENT CLAIMS

Plaintiff State of Wisconsin repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 103 with the same force and effect as if set forth in full herein. The aforementioned practices by Microsoft were in violation of the Wisconsin Trusts and Monopolies Law, ?? 133.03(1), (2), 133.14, and 133.16, Wis. Stats.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the States request:

• that the Court issue a preliminary injunction, granting the relief set forth in a separately filed motion;
• that the Court permanently enjoin and restrain Microsoft Corporation, its successors, assigns, subsidiaries and transferees, and its officers, directors, agents, employees, from engaging in the unlawful practices described in this Complaint and from engaging in any similar unlawful practices, including:
  in any manner, directly or indirectly continuing or maintaining the violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act in which they have been alleged to have engaged, or from committing any other violations of such statutes having a similar purpose or effect
• that the Court order Microsoft to license to third parties its intellectual property rights in such interfaces as are necessary to permit integration of alternative Internet browser software with the Windows operating software; d. that the Court enter judgment against Microsoft Inc., for the maximum penalties determined by the Court to be just and proper, depending on the laws of each State;
• that the States be awarded their costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys? fees; and
• that the States be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York
May 18, 1998

DENNIS C. VACCO
Attorney General of the State of New York
PAMELA JONES HARBOUR
Deputy Attorney General
Public Advocacy

BY:
STEPHEN D. HOUCK
Chief, Antitrust Bureau
New York State Department of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 2601
New York, New York 10271
(212) 416-8275

Counsel for the Plaintiff States
RICHARD L. SCHWARTZ
GAIL P. CLEARY
ALAN R. KUSINITZ
THEODORE ZANG JR.