The US government has argued that Microsoft has made inconsistent arguments about the dangers of breaking it up, and that its own offer to change its business practices would do nothing to stop it from violating anti-trust law.

A Microsoft spokesman called the government's views an unfortunate - but not surprising - attempt to defend an extreme proposal that would damage consumers.

District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled on April 3rd that the software giant had broken US anti-trust law by abusing its monopoly in operating systems for personal computers. On Wednesday next, he will conduct a hearing to consider arguments on a remedy.

In its filing, the government argued that Microsoft had been inconsistent in its arguments about the effects of a break-up. The government says while Microsoft now argues that it is a unified company that may not be split up, it has also argued the opposite. No matter what remedy the judge decides on, Microsoft says it always acted within the law and plans to appeal Jackson's findings. "It's unfortunate but not surprising that the government is trying to defend its extreme remedy proposal," said Microsoft spokesman Mr Mark Murray.