By Peter Kaplan and Reed Stevenson

WASHINGTON/SEATTLE (Reuters) - Software industry rivals suing Microsoft Corp. won a victory on Monday when a federal judge ruled that many of the incriminating findings handed down in the course of the government's antitrust case should apply to their lawsuits as well.

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz denied Microsoft's request to re-open 395 of the 412 fact-findings of U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the trial judge who oversaw the government's landmark case against Microsoft.

The ruling came just three days after another federal judge endorsed Microsoft's antitrust settlement with the U.S. government and nine states, rejecting nearly all the demands for stronger sanctions by a group of nine other states, a decision seen as a major victory for Microsoft.

That ruling by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly thrilled investors who saw it freeing the software giant to chase new markets in business software, video games online services and emerging technology.

But rivals, such as Sun Microsystems Inc., have vowed to press on with their lawsuits, in which they charge Microsoft with abusing its monopoly power in the Windows operating system to impinge on their own software offerings.

"This ruling is significant because it will make it much easier for the consumer and competitor plaintiffs to win their cases against Microsoft," Stanley Chesley, co-chair of the group of attorneys pressing the private case, said in a statement. "Microsoft now enters the trial with one or two strikes against it."

In April 2000 Jackson concluded that Microsoft had broken U.S. antitrust laws and abused its monopoly over PC operating systems. An appeals court later upheld some of Jackson's conclusions, but reversed his order to break up the software giant.

MICROSOFT TO CHALLENGE FINDINGS

Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said on Monday from the company's Redmond, Washington, headquarters that Microsoft intends to file a challenge to specific findings of fact on Nov. 20.

"Many of the findings of fact should not apply to this case," Desler said, "Microsoft has not overcharged consumers. We've provided a great product at a low price."

Motz is overseeing cases filed by Sun Microsystems Inc., AOL Time Warner Inc. unit Netscape Communications, Be Incorporated and Burst.com, as well as a group of consumers, that were filed in the wake of the government's case against Microsoft.

In the cases before Motz, the plaintiffs allege that Microsoft abused its monopoly power to prevent competition in the market for personal computer operating systems, leveraged its Windows monopoly to obtain monopolies in the markets for word processing and spreadsheet software and used its monopoly positions in these markets to overcharge purchasers of Windows, Word, Excel and Office software.

Motz's ruling on Monday mirrors an Oct. 7 decision by yet another judge overseeing 27 class action lawsuits filed against Microsoft in California.

California Superior Court Judge Paul Alvarado ruled that judge Jackson's fact-findings should be binding in those cases as well.

"They won't be able to dispute what they've previously tried and lost," said Richard Grossman, an attorney with Townsend and Townsend and Crew, the firm that is leading the California class action cases.

New York University Professor Nicholas Economides said that the findings of fact would not provide much help for the plaintiffs in any lawsuits concerning the pricing of Windows for consumers.

"I don't believe that the class-action suits are a serious problem for Microsoft," said Economides, a professor at NYU's Stern School of Business.

Economides said that Microsoft was more likely to settle the private lawsuits rather than fight them out in court.

"For Microsoft, it's just a monetary issue," Economides said.

(peter.kaplan@reuters.com, Washington newsroom 202 898-8463, fax: 202 898-8383))