Did Bill Gates overplay his hand?

Microsoft Corp.'s bold reply to a preliminary court injunction may have backfired, according to legal experts who say the tone and substance of the riposte prompted the Justice Department to ask for a contempt citation against the giant software maker.

Calling Microsoft's action a "mockery," the DOJ filed a brief Wednesday asking federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson to find Microsoft in contempt of court for its response to a temporary court order banning the company from tying its Internet Explorer browser to Windows.

On Monday, Microsoft said it would comply with the ruling by offering two alternatives to its current bundled product: one that's old and another that doesn't work.

That may not go over well with the judge, lawyers and analysts said.

"It's one thing to play hardball with competitors, or to play hardball with your opponent in court -- even if it is the DOJ -- but it's quite different to play hardball with a court injunction," said Rich Gray, an attorney with Bergeson, Eliolopoulis, Grady & Gray. "It's almost childish."

In Wednesday's filing, the DOJ asked the judge to: require Microsoft to offer hardware makers a version of Windows 95 that works and to notify the Justice Department 30 days before releasing any updated operating systems or browsers. It also asked the judge to reconsider levying a $1 million a day fine.

Gray said the DOJ has a good a chance at winning its first two requests.

"Once you get into a situation where a judge thinks you're playing games with a court order, you should remember the judge has tremendous power to issue additional orders," he said.

Paul Roeder, an antitrust attorney at Gray, Cary, Ware, and Freidenrich, agreed the DOJ has the upper hand right now -- unless Microsoft can prove it has no other Windows 95 option available.

"Certainly, they're in the 'you've got some explaining to do' chair," Roeder said. "But maybe they can explain it."

However, he said such a ruling would be unusual because judges are more likely to prohibit an action than require it.

"Telling someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise do -- that is, hire this person, sell this product -- is highly unusual," Roeder said.

But Roeder said part of the burden is on Microsoft because it signed the 1995 antitrust consent decree.

Predictably, Microsoft rival Netscape Communications Corp. is standing by the recent DOJ move. Netscape General Counsel Roberta Katz said she agrees with the DOJ conclusion that Microsoft acted in bad faith.

"Microsoft's response was almost daring Justice or the courts to do something like this," Katz said in a statement. "It's not at all surprising that the Department of Justice acted on this so quickly."

The DOJ is asking for a Microsoft reply by the end of the week and a judge's decision shortly after that.