Now that district court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson has ordered the software giant split in two - and with Microsoft set to appeal - the federal government will have to decide whether to then try to take the case directly to the nation's highest court, bypassing the US appeals court.

Although the law allows for direct appeals to the Supreme Court and the judge in the case has expressed his preference for a speedy resolution, legal experts doubted the justices would want to hear the case immediately.The government may want to dispose of any appeals by Microsoft quickly, and it may want to bypass the conservative-controlled appeals court, which already has sided with Microsoft in earlier rulings in the case, in one instance overturning judge Jackson.

Microsoft made clear the case should go through the normal appellate process, which could drag on for months, if not years. It would be in the firm's interest to postpone any breakup for as long as possible.

"Given the major factual and procedural and legal disagreements throughout the record, this is clearly a case that would benefit from a thorough review by the appeals court," Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray said. The experts said the Supreme Court would be highly reluctant to intervene in the case before the appeals court. They agreed the Supreme Court most likely would prefer that the appeals court first sift through the extensive record in the case and that the justices would benefit from the analysis by the appeals court of the antitrust and technology issues.

"I don't quite see the national emergency," said Robert Bork, an expert in antitrust law and a former US appeals court judge and solicitor general at the US Justice Department.

Bork, a consultant to an industry group that has generally taken positions against Microsoft in the case, said he thought it would be an "almost futile gesture" to try to go directly to the Supreme Court.

The law provides for the Supreme Court to directly hear cases of "general public importance in the administration of Justice." If the Justice Department asks the Supreme court to hear the case quickly, the justices would have to decide whether to grant the request or deny it and send the case to the appeals court.

Tom Goldstein, who argued a number of cases before the Supreme Court this term, said the justices could simply instruct the appeals court to decide the case quickly.

Goldstein noted the Supreme Court would be in recess at the end of June, returning in October. If the appeals court rules quickly, the Supreme Court still could decide the case during its term that begins in October, he said.A 1903 antitrust law that originally provided for direct appeals to the Supreme Court as a matter of course was revised in 1974 to give the court discretion in taking such cases.

Since the revision, the law has been used only in the early 1980s, when there were state objections to the federal government's settlement with AT&T Corp. The court summarily affirmed the breakup plan. American University law professor Jonathan Baker questioned whether the Justice Department would go directly to the Supreme Court.

"It's hard to see what the compelling reasons is for the Supreme Court taking this case quickly." A Justice Department official was unableto say what the government would do next.