By William Fellows and Siobhan Kennedy

Bristol Technology Inc has published the highly confidential WISE (Windows Interface Source Environment) agreement with Microsoft Corp on its web site. Bristol was finally forced to accept the terms of the contract last week following its defeat in the courtrooms (CI No 3,721). The publication of the document was branded a scurrilous act by rival company Mainsoft Corp’s CEO Ivor Share, who said his company lawyers were looking into it. In its court case, Bristol had maintained it could not build a profitable business under the terms of the contract. Mainsoft claims it is doing just that.

The WISE agreement was brought in evidence during Bristol’s private anti-trust against Microsoft. Bristol had argued Microsoft had in effect refused to deal with it, having renegotiated the terms of the original 1994 WISE agreement, rendering it unacceptable. Bristol CEO Keith Blackwell said during the trial the company simply couldn’t do business under the revised terms Microsoft offered. But on signing the contract last week, Blackwell said there was little choice if the company wasn’t to lose all of its customers to Mainsoft and further endanger the livelihoods of Bristol’s remaining employees. He said Bristol’s customers were fully supportive of its position. In contrast, Mainsoft’s Share declared the agreement very reasonable.

Bristol claims it is this self same agreement which it has published on its website which it has now signed. Share says the agreement is quite clearly not the one Bristol has signed. To begin with it has Mainsoft’s name on it! Share says there are also lots of holes in the published agreement – now a year old – compared with the original and that his relationship with Microsoft has moved on from there in any case. The world has changed.

Bristol says it’s going to file an action seeking injunctive relief under the one part of its case it did win: the jury found Microsoft had carried out deceptive business practices under Connecticut state law and awarded Bristol a paltry $1 in damages. It had sought $263m. Bristol notes the judge has the ability to award punitive damages, which are normally trebled in antitrust cases.