The state's proposed sanctions were "fundamentally flawed," Microsoft attorney John Warden told U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly during closing arguments.

	See also:
•	Read ongoing U.S. v. Microsoft coverage
•	MS: Remedies a Bonus for Crackers
•	Microsoft: Few Changes to OS
•	'It's Possible' Expert Hurts MS
•	Cagey MS Moves to Seal Case
•	Everybody's got issues in Politics

"We can't remedy this by changing a few words here and there," Warden said. "We can't fix it."

The nine states, in contrast, heeded the judge's instructions and identified their most important demand -- a requirement for Microsoft to share computer code that allows rival software to work well with Microsoft's dominant Windows operating system.

The states accused the company of "thuggish" business practices in their closing presentation, and portrayed the judge as the last chance to stop Microsoft's bullying.

"I suggest to you that Microsoft still doesn't get it and you're the only one left to tell them what it's all about," states' attorney Brendan Sullivan told Kollar-Kotelly.

The nine states have refused to sign a settlement of the case reached in November between Microsoft and the U.S. Justice Department and endorsed by nine other states previously party to the four-year-old case.

The states said the sharing of key Windows computer code was even more important than demands for a version of Windows with removable features that could be replaced by competitors.

Microsoft would be forced to behave "more like a company facing competition and less like a firm existing in a comfortable monopoly" under the dissenting states' proposals said Steve Kuney, another attorney for the states.

Kuney accused Microsoft chairman Bill Gates of arrogance and advocating monopoly when he testified in April.

"Somehow they know better than anyone else what's best for this PC ecosystem. What's good for Microsoft is therefore good for the economy, good for consumers and good for everybody else," he said.

Warden, for Microsoft, accused Kuney of misrepresenting the company's position. "Microsoft does not claim that monopoly is the preferred form of industrial organization," he told Kollar-Kotelly.

Warden also took exception to Sullivan's portrayal of Microsoft as some kind of scofflaw. "We haven't failed to get some message. We haven't claimed that we're immune from the law or anything of that kind," he said.

Kollar-Kotelly issued an order on Tuesday telling both sides to come to court prepared to answer questions on how their proposals could be modified if she rejects their respective remedies as currently written -- suggesting she is open to some hybrid of the two positions in a modified settlement agreement.

Outside the courthouse afterwards, the hold-out attorneys general said they were not surprised by Microsoft's decision to reject any further compromise.