Thread: Summary mostly of govt position on AP wire:
WASHINGTON (AP) - After hearing testimony from more than two dozen witnesses and reading tens of thousands of pages of evidence, the judge in the Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) antitrust case is left with starkly different portrayals of the titan of the world's high-tech industry.
The government and Microsoft wrapped up the case Tuesday, as the judge alternately heard the company described as a vigilant monopolist and as a company that fights tough but legally in the bareknuckles high-tech industry where billions of dollars are at stake.
Citing dozens of internal e-mails and sworn testimony already in evidence, government lawyers said Microsoft was ruthless in trying to protect the dominance of its Windows software. Microsoft's flagship product runs most personal computers and is largely responsible for the vast wealth of the world's richest man, billionaire company chairman Bill Gates.
``There are no other lawful situations in which a company has done what Microsoft has done,' Justice Department lawyer David Boies said. He accused the company of having ``used its power to squelch potential competitors, to keep them from emerging.'
Microsoft lawyer John Warden criticized what he called the government's ``astounding failures of proof,' together with ``red herrings, misstatements and omissions' presented during 76 days of courtroom testimony earlier this year.
Warden charged that the antitrust case, filed under the Sherman Act, was largely driven by complaints from Microsoft's jealous industry rivals, including America Online Inc. (NYSE:AOL - news), the former Netscape Communications Corp., Sun Microsystems Inc. (Nasdaq:SUNW - news), Apple Computer Inc. (Nasdaq:AAPL - news) and IBM.
``The government should not be siding with Microsoft's opponents,' Warden said. He said they are ``entirely capable of taking care of themselves.'
AOL recently bought Netscape for $10 billion and hired a top Sun executive as its chief technology officer.
Tuesday marked the last time lawyers will meet in the courtroom prior to U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's first of a two-phase verdict, which could come as early as next month.
The judge, unusually quiet Tuesday, offered no insight into how he is formulating his decision.
During the trial, Jackson often asked pointed questions of witnesses and lawyers, sometimes even affecting financial markets by the tenor of his voice. But before a packed courtroom gallery Tuesday, he remained inscrutable through five hours of closing arguments.
Stephen Houck, lead lawyer for 19 states suing Microsoft with the Justice Department, told the judge the company's ``unshakable stranglehold' over such software ``has cost consumers untold millions - probably hundreds of millions of dollars.'
``Microsoft is like the emperor without clothes,' said Houck, who gave part of the government's tag-team closing arguments. ``Everyone knows, including Microsoft, that it's a monopoly.'
The lawyers generally focused their closing arguments on what antitrust experts believe to be each side's strongest claims.
The government pointed out the obvious dominance of Windows as evidence that the company wields monopoly power, a crucial legal test for its lawsuit. It also questioned the credibility of Microsoft's trial witnesses, often contradicted by company documents or other industry executives.
Houck told the judge Microsoft suffered from two problems: ``the done-in-by-your-own-exhibit' trouble and ``doggone witness' trouble.
Microsoft challenged the notion that its actions have hurt consumers, and Warden denied that Microsoft ever discouraged the nation's computer makers and other companies from distributing Netscape's Internet software.
Warden also reminded the judge of last spring's decision by a federal appeals court that Microsoft's bundling of its Internet software with Windows was legal and a ``genuine integration' because consumers benefited.
The judge is expected to announce his first verdict - a decision about the facts of the case - within four to eight weeks. The lawsuit is certain to drag through federal appeals courts for years unless the sides settle |
