Here's another way to look at the good lawyering happening in that courtroom. It's still much better than what was happening before the break, but it's far too early for either side to claim "the case is history".
Microsoft trial: Strategy shifts toward limiting any sanctions
seattletimes.com
Returning to court after a three-month break, Microsoft's case began transforming into an argument on limiting potential sanctions should a federal judge rule the company has broken antitrust laws.
...
Fisher's concession [on the effect of the AOL's purchase of Netscape], along with statements from Jackson, do not contradict government evidence that Microsoft may have engaged in illegal tactics in the past five years to protect a monopoly in personal-computer operating systems.
Instead, the economist's statements seem to support a case for limiting sanctions, such as breaking up Microsoft into smaller companies or forcing it to auction off the Windows source code to create a new competitor.
...
After what may have been Microsoft's most effective day-and-a-half of cross-examination, however, the company's attorneys think they have done damage to the government's core allegations, not just set the stage for an argument on penalties.
...
Throughout the trial, Jackson's fascination with AOL's $10 billion purchase of Netscape has grown, but not as an example of the competitiveness of the industry and why the government's case is moot, as Microsoft contends.
Instead, his questions are directed at the current state and future of the software industry. That focus strongly indicates he is already mulling potential remedies to Microsoft's practices. Several times yesterday, he asked for the latest figures on the browser wars between Netscape's browsers and Microsoft's Internet Explorer.
|
