The epic legal battle between the U.S. Department of Justice (JD) and Microsoft Corp. took a giant step toward resolution last week, as the two parties on Nov. 2 asked a federal judge to approve a settlement of antitrust charges that would set new rules for the nation's hard-hit technology industry.

But an informal poll of school technology leaders across the country revealed a mix of opinions that leaves educators as sharply divided over the settlement as the states' attorneys general who joined the government's landmark suit.

The deal would require Microsoft to give independent monitors full access to its books and plans for five years to ensure compliance and to provide information to help rivals make products compatible with its dominant Windows operating software.

However, only two-thirds of the 18 states that joined the federal government to sue Microsoft for antitrust violations are willing to accept the proposed settlement. The others are determined to go to trial.

Six states expressed support for the proposed settlement struck last week between JD and the software giant to end the monopoly case, and at least six others successfully negotiated new concessions with Microsoft that moved them closer to a deal.

Those changes broadened disclosures Microsoft must make to rivals about the operation of its powerful server software. By adding the phrase "or the internet" to one section, lawyers for the states explicitly required Microsoft to reveal technical details about servers other than just those used for office networks.

That slight change could broaden the settlement to cover Microsoft's future business strategies of providing internet services. The states also negotiated to establish a separate oversight committee, so the states can ensure compliance.

Philip Beck, a lawyer for JD, described the new provisions as "clarifications, not substantial changes" and suggested the federal government wouldn't object.

The proposed settlement

Terms of the settlement were closely guarded, and people close to the talks cautioned that precise language on important provisions was still being written.

The settlement would impose some restrictions on Microsoft during the next five years and could be extended two more years—until 2008—if the company violates terms of the deal, according to one person familiar with the agreement. A three-person panel would monitor Microsoft's compliance.

The current antitrust case is rooted in allegations that Microsoft violated a related 1995 agreement with the Justice Department.

The prospective settlement would not require complete disclosures by Microsoft of the "source code" blueprints for its monopoly Windows operating system, the underpinnings of its multibillion-dollar business, according to business analyst David Readerman of Thomas Weisel Partners in San Francisco. But portions of the Internet Explorer web browser would be disclosed.