If you're anything like us (and heaven help you if you are), you're still walking around all grins and giggles over Europe's recent antitrust ruling against Microsoft. It was a biggie, after all; a fine of over $600 million (pocket change to Redmond's Finest, of course, but the largest ever imposed by the European Commission for antitrust violations), a demand that the company "reveal secrets of its Windows software," and a requirement that customers be able to buy a version of Windows without Windows Media Player bundled in. And while there's still plenty of time for the whole thing to fall apart during the appeals process, for now, at least, we can all rejoice in the knowledge that Europe delivered the smackdown that the U.S. Department of Justice only promised-- and then never even came close to pulling off.

But what of the DoJ? How are they reacting to Europe's Microsoft ruling? Possibly not how you might have expected: faithful viewer Lee Dronick notes that, according to the Associated Press, the Justice Department has actually gone public to express its disapproval of the EC's actions. R. Hewitt Pate, the assistant attorney general for the DoJ's antitrust division-- and therefore one of the guys you'd generally expect to be cheering loudest right about now-- announced that the "$613 million fine and penalties... could hamper innovation and harm consumers." Wow-- isn't that a direct quote from Microsoft's PR department? In particular, Pate claims that "code removal" (i.e. stopping the forced bundling of Windows Media Player) was "never part of the U.S. solution"; we guess he wasn't around in 1997 when the DoJ got a judge to order Microsoft to stop forcing Wintel manufacturers to ship all Windows systems with Internet Explorer preinstalled. (Microsoft got around it, in typical sleazy fashion.) Incredibly, Pate is also against the size of the fine, since it "raises questions about the lesser fines imposed on price-fixing cartels and other violators."

Now, you may be having a little trouble reconciling those statements with Pate's job, which is presumably to prevent blatant monopoly abuse-- the sort that Microsoft is so good at, it's considering having t-shirts printed up. But remember, the Justice Department has to try to save at least a little face, here, considering how badly it muffed its (multiple) shot(s) at the Redmond Menace. Way back in 1995 or so, the DoJ nailed Microsoft for antitrust violations and the outcome was a "consent decree," which was basically Microsoft promising it'd never do it again. Then the DoJ came after the company only a couple of years later for tying Internet Explorer to Windows, and that eventually led to the mammoth "Redmond Justice" case-- in which the DoJ proved Microsoft guilty (findings of law that were never overturned, even after every Microsoft appeal) and then suddenly tossed it all away on a settlement that amounted to little more than the same useless consent decree of 1995.

So, sure, now that Europe has issued a ruling that might actually change something, Pate claims that the EC's actions go too far and will hurt consumers, and insists that the DoJ's own settlement provides "clear and effective protection" against future infractions. But only two months ago, according to the Associated Press, the DoJ had admitted that it was "increasingly uneasy" that the settlement was "falling short of the government's hopes." So which is it, guys? Sounds to us like the Justice Department is just trying to avoid getting shown up by the EC.

Oh, and let's not forget the other obvious reason why the DoJ might oppose Europe's ruling. C'mon, viewers, get your conspiracy mojo workin', now-- the answer is simple: the DoJ wants to get the fine reduced because any fine paid out for antitrust violations comes out of Microsoft's Monopoly Slush Fund, the very same fund Microsoft taps for bribes. And what better explanation than outright bribery for that ridiculous DoJ settlement even when Microsoft was out of appeals? Sounds to us like maybe Pate et al are concerned that the European fine might turn into a $613 million pay cut for themselves. Not that we're accusing anybody of anything, of course, but you have to admit, it's mighty suspicious...