February 1, 2000: Microsoft filed its sur-reply briefs, highlighting case law over the past 50 years that firmly supports the company's legal position in the case; the briefs also argue that the government is using rhetoric, not case law, in its attempt to rewrite the antitrust laws to specifically suit its purposes in this case.

January 18, 2000: Microsoft filed its Proposed Conclusions of Law, noting that although the Court's Findings of Fact paint an unflattering picture of the company, the findings do not add up to an antitrust violation. The company's brief cited dozens of legal precedents, as well as numerous points from the Court's Findings which support Microsoft's position. Oral arguments on the proposed conclusions of law are scheduled for Feburary 22.

November 5, 1999: U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his Findings of Fact, a document that lays out the Court's understanding of the facts in the case. This is one step in an ongoing legal process; the judge is not expected to issue a final decision in the case until next year.

September 21, 1999: Microsoft and the government presented their closing arguments, responding to each others' Proposed Findings of Fact and summarizing the key points of their cases. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson will now weigh the evidence and render a final decision.

September 10, 1999: Microsoft and the government today submitted their Revised Proposed Findings of Fact in the federal antitrust trial. Microsoft goes even further in the Revised Proposed Findings of Fact than it did in the original document, sharpening several points and including even more evidence and analysis to show that consumers have not been harmed by Microsoft's actions and that many of the government's allegations are not supported by the facts.

August 10, 1999: Microsoft and the government today submitted their Proposed Findings of Fact, documents that set forth the facts of the case, as established by evidence, documents, depositions, written testimony and in-court testimony.

June 24, 1999: Richard Schmalensee, dean of the Sloan School of Management at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology and Microsoft's final rebuttal witness, completed his testimony. He outlined several new technologies, including the Linux operating system and the growing number of Web-based applications, that pose serious competitive threats to Microsoft. Attorneys for the company also introduced evidence that America Online is trying to develop a low-cost computer that will allow users to connect to the Internet and run applications without using any Microsoft software. Schmalensee's testimony concluded the rebuttal phase of the trial.

June 16, 1999: Gordon Eubanks, CEO of Oblix, took the stand as Microsoft's second rebuttal witness. His testimony focused on the rapid pace of change in the software industry, noting that any company -- no matter how successful -- must continually innovate in order to stay ahead. He also explained the history of operating systems, noting that new features such as Web browsing are a natural part of their evolution. Richard Schmalensee, dean of the Sloan School of Management at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology and Microsoft's final rebuttal witness, is expected to take the stand when the trial resumes on June 21.

June 14, 1999: Microsoft called AOL's David Colburn to the stand as a hostile rebuttal witness for the defense. Colburn, who appeared as a government witness during the first phase of the trial, testified about the recent $10 billion AOL/Netscape merger. His testimony strengthened Microsoft's position that competition is alive and well in the software industry, and evidence introduced today seriously undermined the government's allegation that Microsoft somehow foreclosed Netscape's ability to distribute its Web browsing software.

June 10, 1999: Professor Edward Felten, the government's final rebuttal witness, demonstrated a modified version of his "prototype removal program," but Microsoft attorney Steven Holley showed during cross-examination that Felten's program fails to remove Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browsing technology from the Windows operating system. Although Felten’s program was designed to bolster the government's claim that Microsoft illegally "tied" Internet Explorer with Windows, today's demonstration showed clearly that the program does not remove Internet functionality but only succeeds in "hiding" it from users.

June 7-9, 1999: IBM official Garry Norris took the stand as a witness for the government, testifying about Microsoft's relationship with IBM between 1994 and 1997. During cross-examination by Microsoft attorneys, Norris admitted that Microsoft never threatened to withhold a Windows license from IBM, and that Microsoft never required IBM to stop shipping a competing suite of applications on its PCs. Microsoft attorneys introduced into evidence documents that contradict Norris' testimony that Microsoft attempted to require IBM to "reduce, drop or eliminate" its support for OS/2 as the price of a closer relationship between the two companies. The partnership agreement -- which IBM rejected -- contained no such provision.

June 2-4, 1999: Microsoft attorneys cross-examined MIT economist Franklin Fisher, highlighting numerous errors in his testimony regarding Windows pricing. Several documents relating to the recent AOL/Netscape/Sun agreement were introduced into evidence, refuting much of Professor Fisher's previous testimony and offering further proof that Microsoft faces serious competition in the software industry. The introduction of these documents caught the attention of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who said, "The existence of these documents certainly does call into question the accuracy of [Fisher's] forecast of the future.".
While under oath, Fisher also acknowledged that he has a potential financial interest in the outcome of the trial: Charles River Associates, an economics firm in which Fisher is a major shareholder, is apparently working with several Microsoft competitors who are considering their own private lawsuits if the trial is decided in the government's favor.

June 1, 1999: The trial resumed today after a three-month-long recess. The government called Professor Franklin Fisher, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as its first rebuttal witness. His testimony is expected to continue through tomorrow, when Microsoft will begin its cross-examination. Six witnesses have been called to testify during the rebuttal phase of the trail, three by the Department of Justice and three by Microsoft. This phase of the trial is expected to last 4-5 weeks.

February 26, 1999: Microsoft rested its defense today, after senior vice president Bob Muglia testified that Microsoft's improvements to Java technology offer software developers more features to choose from when writing Java applications, ultimately resulting in better products for consumers. The next phase of the trial, which is now in recess, will feature the testimony of rebuttal witnesses for both Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
"The government has tried to manufacture theatrics in the courtroom to drive the news," said Microsoft General Counsel William Neukom. "Microsoft has built a solid record of evidence pertinent to the applicable law. The government has failed to show any harm to consumers as a result of Microsoft's activity. On the contrary, the record in this trial shows very clearly that Microsoft's drive for innovation has resulted in better products at lower prices for consumers."

February 25, 1999: Microsoft senior vice president Joachim Kempin testified today that restrictions in the company's contracts with computer manufacturers are intended to protect the integrity of Microsoft's products on behalf of consumers, not to disadvantage the products of its competitors. He noted that OEMs are free to customize their PCs with branded features, include non-Microsoft software and use approximately 85 percent of the Windows desktop for their own purposes.

February 24, 1999: Eric Engstrom concluded his testimony today, denouncing allegations by the government and an Apple executive that Microsoft intentionally sabotaged Apple's QuickTime multimedia software by creating compatibility problems with Windows. Later in the day, Microsoft senior vice president Joachim Kempin took the stand, testifying that Microsoft's license agreements with personal computer manufacturers (OEMs) do not prevent them from installing or promoting non-Microsoft software on their PCs. This testimony was supported by a videotape that showed, among other things, the way many major OEMS install and display non-Microsoft software - including Netscape Navigator - on the Windows desktop, in the Start menu and elsewhere.

February 23, 1999: Microsoft today introduced into evidence an October 1995 email message from AOL executive David Kaiser to Dan Rosen, informing him that Netscape senior vice president Marc Andreessen suggested Rosen as a candidate for CEO of a company on whose board of directors Andreessen and Kaiser served. This evidence undermines the government's claim that Microsoft threatened to "crush" Netscape at a June 1995 meeting. Rosen has previously testified that the purpose of this meeting was to form a strategic relationship between the two companies, and evidence introduced today further supported this.
Eric Engstrom, Microsoft's general manager of MSN Internet access, took the stand later in the day. His testimony refutes claims made by the government and Apple executive Avadis Tevanian that Microsoft told Apple to stop developing its QuickTime for Windows multimedia software and intentionally disabled Apple's software so that it wouldn't work properly on Windows.
Separately, Microsoft announced that it issued subpoenas to Netscape, America Online and Sun Microsystems seeking additional information about AOL's pending acquisition of Netscape and a related deal between AOL and Sun. Microsoft believes that information about this alliance, and the dynamic competition it illustrates, could be important in the current antitrust trial.

February 22, 1999: In his cross-examination of Microsoft witness Dan Rosen, a government attorney left virtually unchallenged his testimony that Microsoft was seeking a positive, strategic relationship with Netscape in 1995, and did not attempt to force Netscape to agree to an illegal division of markets. Government attorney David Boies ignored the substance of Rosen's testimony, which directly contradicts Netscape CEO James Barksdale's version of the June 21, 1995 meeting, at which Barksdale claims Microsoft threatened to crush Netscape if it refused to "divide the market" for Web browsing software. On the contrary, Rosen testified that the two companies sought to understand each others' business and to forge a "win-win" relationship.

February 19, 1999: Microsoft attorney Richard Pepperman today introduced evidence showing that Microsoft never complained about Compaq's decision to feature Netscape software on its personal computers. By contrast, America Online threatened to terminate its contract with Compaq unless the PC manufacturer stopped promoting Netscape and Microsoft with icons on PC desktops and instead favored AOL exclusively. In a letter dated September 25, 1996, AOL President Ted Leonsis said Compaq had breached an agreement with AOL by promoting Internet products and services from both Netscape and Microsoft, and threatened to terminate the agreement. Compaq senior executive John Rose testified that this dispute was eventually worked out without any change to Compaq's strategies regarding Netscape and Microsoft.
Separately, the written testimony of Eric Engstrom was released. Engstrom, general manager for MSN Internet Access at Microsoft, shows that Microsoft's work in creating multimedia technologies has provided real benefits to consumers. His testimony also disproves the government's allegations that Microsoft attempted to divide a supposed market when discussing Windows multimedia technology with Apple Computer, as well as Avadis Tevanian’s groundless allegation that Microsoft intentionally disabled Apple’s QuickTime software.

February 18, 1999: Compaq senior executive John Rose continued his testimony today, confirming that consumers are free to choose which browser they want to use. Although his company ships Internet Explorer as the default web browser on its computers, He noted that Compaq pre-installs Web browsing software from both Microsoft and Netscape, allowing customers to switch between browsers at will. Since Compaq is one of the world's largest computer manufacturers - shipping tens of millions of PCs every year - Rose's testimony seriously undermines the government's allegations.

February 17, 1999: In his third day of testimony, Brad Chase testified that documents filed by Sun Microsystems with the Securities and Exchange Commission last week support Microsoft's position that America Online (AOL) chose Internet Explorer as its default browser in 1996 primarily because Microsoft's Web browsing technology was superior to Netscape's and offered AOL features that Netscape couldn't match. The Sun documents, which outline several initiatives that it intends to undertake with AOL, show that the two companies plan to develop a componentized browser similar to technology offered by Microsoft. Chase said that AOL recently renewed its contract with Microsoft for another two years, but he also noted that these documents clearly indicate AOL's intention to develop Web browsing technology that will allow it to switch to Netscape.
In the afternoon, Compaq senior executive John Rose began his testimony, refuting earlier allegations by Netscape CEO Jim Barksdale and undermining one of the government's key allegations - that Microsoft in 1996 threatened to cancel Compaq's license to ship Windows when Compaq began loading Netscape's browser on its machines. Rose explained that Microsoft's complaint had nothing to do with Netscape - instead, Microsoft complained because Compaq had inadvertently violated its Windows licensing agreement and other commitments it had made to Microsoft.

February 16, 1999: Microsoft Vice President Brad Chase continued his testimony, reaffirming his earlier assertion that Microsoft's cross-promotional agreements with other companies have not foreclosed Netscape's ability to distribute its Web browsing software. Under those agreements, Chase said, America Online (AOL) and other providers of Internet services or content have always been free to provide Netscape's software, and consumers are completely free to choose any other browser over Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Government attorney David Boies attempted to show that it was difficult for AOL subscribers to download Netscape's software, but Chase pointed out that this difficulty was exaggerated, and also that the downloading process is determined by AOL and Netscape, not by any provision in AOL's contract with Microsoft.

February 11, 1999: Microsoft Vice President Brad Chase testified that America Online chose Internet Explorer as the primary Web browsing software for its online service because it offered benefits to AOL's customers that Netscape could not offer. This testimony refutes the government's claims, and earlier testimony of AOL executive David Colburn, that AOL felt compelled to choose Internet Explorer as the price of gaining the distribution advantage of having the AOL icon on the Windows desktop, and that Microsoft wanted the agreement to help it foreclose distribution of Netscape's browser. Chase explained that when AOL decided to stop building its own browser, Netscape and Microsoft competed aggressively for the business, and Microsoft won on the merits of its technology. Chase supported this assertion by citing comments made by Colburn and by AOL CEO Steve Case shortly after the 1996 agreement.

February 10, 1999: Cameron Myhrvold continued his testimony today, focusing on the government's allegation that Microsoft's contracts with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) foreclosed distribution of Netscape's browser. He explained that these contracts were designed to take full advantage of all distribution opportunities with ISPs; as a newcomer to the Internet at the time these contracts were negotiated, it was important for Microsoft to establish relationships with ISPs and find ways to distribute Internet Explorer technology though this channel. Myhrvold noted that most of the ISPs featured in the Windows Referral Server also distributed Netscape's browser, while many of Netscape's contracts with ISPs exclude promotion and distribution of IE entirely.

February 9, 1999: Microsoft Vice President Cameron Myhrvold testified today that the integration of Internet technologies into Windows 98 provides benefits to consumers by making it easier to open an online account and start using the Internet. In a videotaped demonstration, he compared the streamlined user experience of establishing an online account and an Internet connection using Windows 98 with the more complicated process of trying to achieve the same result using Windows 3.1 and a stand-alone software package. While the Windows 3.1 process took approximately 17 minutes, the Windows 98 process took less than five.

February 8, 1999: Will Poole, Microsoft's Senior Director of Business Development and Strategy for the Personal and Business Systems Group, testified today that the company's short-lived contracts with a handful of popular Internet Content Providers (ICPs) were intended to increase consumer awareness of new features in Microsoft's Internet Explorer technology, not to foreclose Netscape's ability to distribute its Web browser. He said Microsoft entered into these agreements for three reasons - to gain acceptance for new features in IE; to establish strong brand association with popular brands like Disney and America Online; and to provide "pre-Internet" content on the Channel Bar for novice users.

February 4, 1999: Microsoft today played a new 70-minute video demonstration, clearly showing that Professor Felten's "prototype removal program" not only fails to remove Internet Explorer from the Windows operating system, but also breaks or interferes with many third-party software applications.
Separately, Michael Devlin, president of Rational Software Corporation, told the Court that Microsoft's design of Windows 98 allows his company and other independent software developers to build faster, more powerful and more efficient tools and applications. He said the application programming interfaces (APIs) that provide Internet functionality in Windows are the most recent evolution of the networking and user-interface APIs that have been in all operating systems for years. Devlin remarked that the open, componentized nature of Internet Explorer technologies allows his company to write better, more efficient applications for his customers, many of whom are Microsoft competitors.

February 3, 1999: U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson today agreed to let Microsoft repeat tests on Professor Felten's "prototype removal program" and produce a new videotaped demonstration to be used as evidence in the trial. Government attorneys and technical experts were invited to monitor the production of the new videotape.
Separately, Microsoft today released the written testimony of William Poole, Microsoft's Senior Director of Business Development for Windows. His testimony refutes the government's claim that Microsoft's agreements with 24 Internet Content Providers foreclosed Netscape's ability to distribute its Web browsing software.

February 2, 1999: Today James Allchin testified that an inconsistency in a videotaped demonstration, which government attorney David Boies highlighted during his cross-examination, does nothing to invalidate either the tests on which the demonstration was based or the substance of his testimony. Allchin has refuted claims by Professor Edward Felten, the government's leading technical witness, that he developed a software program that removes Internet Explorer (IE) technologies from Windows 98 without damaging the operating system. By conducting thorough tests of Felten's program, Allchin discovered that it not only fails to remove IE from Windows 98, but it also degrades the performance of the operating system.
To demonstrate those findings in court, some of Allchin's tests were replicated by a technical team at Microsoft and videotaped for presentation as evidence in the trial. When the videotape was played in court, a title on one screen showed "Microsoft Internet Explorer" where it should have said "Windows 98," a change made automatically by the Felten program.
Allchin agreed that there was an inconsistency between the taped demonstration and the standard screen profile that should have been displayed after the Felten program had run on the computer. After telephoning members of the technical team at Microsoft during the lunch recess, however, Allchin was able to explain the discrepancy when court resumed in the afternoon. On Wednesday evening Microsoft issued a statement that explains the inconsistencies in detail and shows that the videotape accurately represents his findings in all of the tests he performed on the Felten program.
Separately, the written testimony of Microsoft witness Michael T. Devlin was released. Mr. Devlin is president of Rational Software Corporation. His testimony explains how software developers are building innovative new software products that take advantage of the Internet Explorer technologies in Windows.

February 1, 1999: Microsoft Senior Vice President James Allchin, supported by a series of videotaped demonstrations, showed that Microsoft's integration of Internet technologies into Windows offers consumers and software developers benefits that can't be achieved simply by running a Web browser application on top of an operating system. Allchin told the court that Microsoft's decision to integrate Internet Explorer into Windows 98 was a natural step in the evolution of operating systems.
Government attorney David Boies claimed that Microsoft had built Internet Explorer into Windows to increase distribution of its Web browsing capabilities, and to create a disadvantage for its competitor Netscape. Microsoft refuted those claims by citing the June 1998 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, which said that Microsoft has the right to determine what features and functions to include in its operating systems as long as the end product offers "plausible consumer benefits." The Court ruled that Microsoft's integration of Internet Explorer and Windows meets that test. The Court also said that the method by which Internet Explorer is distributed, and whether installation is done by customers or computer manufacturers, is irrelevant.

January 28, 1999: In his last day on the witness stand, Microsoft executive Paul Maritz testified that advances in fundamental computer technologies -such as microprocessors, memory and connectivity - create "inflection points" in the software industry, points at which rapid and dramatic changes occur, new technologies become possible, and companies that are slow to adapt quickly become obsolete. This undercuts the government's claim that the popularity of the Windows operating system gives Microsoft monopoly power. Government attorneys have tried for weeks to persuade the Court that Windows faces no serious competitive challenge. Microsoft's first two witnesses, however, have pointed to a host of competing technologies that gain momentum with each new technological change in the industry.
Separately, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson granted the government's request for access to a Microsoft spreadsheet that allegedly includes some information about which software code in Internet Explorer is exclusive to Web browsing, and which is shared by other functions and applications. The government contends that this supports its allegation that Microsoft illegally tied two products - the Windows 98 operating system and Internet Explorer - and should be required to separate them, a course of action that will in reality disable Windows. Microsoft argued that the spreadsheet was outside the scope of the government's request for information about Microsoft's tests of a program, developed by one of the government's witnesses, that hides access to Internet Explorer on Windows 98.

January 27, 1999: Paul Maritz testified today that Microsoft's decision to integrate Internet technologies into its operating system was a critical competitive strategy for the company. Failure to integrate would have led to the "certain decline" of Windows and the loss of billions of dollars in revenue, because Microsoft's customers would have turned to other operating systems that did integrate those features, he said. The government has tried to discredit any suggestion that the company faces competition from emerging computing platforms. However, Maritz cited the open source software movement, which is driving the Linux operating system, as an example of a genuine competitive threat to Microsoft. The Internet, combined with powerful but inexpensive PCs, has enabled people around the world to work together to write increasingly sophisticated software. Maritz cited not only Linux, but also the Apache Web server and SendMail electronic mail package as examples of the many commercially viable software products already developed across the Internet by the open source software movement.
"The open source movement is at its best when it has some particular target to focus on. In some ways they are the world's ultimate cloning army," Maritz said. "They . . . cloned Unix in a certain sense through Linux, they cloned Web servers, and now they're moving on to focus on applications and application interfaces. So this is something that's of great concern to commercial software vendors."

January 26, 1999: Microsoft group vice president for platforms and applications Paul Maritz testified today that the purpose of discussions between Microsoft and Netscape in 1995 was to seek "common ground that would allow the two companies to cooperate in some areas of their businesses even as they competed vigorously in others." The government alleges that Microsoft was so worried that Netscape's Web browser would become an alternative applications platform for software developers that it tried to force Netscape to cede the emerging business for Web browsing software to Microsoft in exchange for help in other areas, and then threatened to "crush" the smaller company if it didn't comply. According to Maritz, Microsoft was trying to get a better understanding of Netscape's business strategy - Netscape was a relatively young company in 1995, and few in the industry knew much about it - and to persuade it to use Microsoft technology wherever this met its needs and could enhance its business.

January 25, 1999: Paul Maritz, Microsoft's group vice president for platforms and applications, and the highest ranking Microsoft executive scheduled to testify at the trial, challenged the government's antitrust case on Monday when he testified that he had never threatened to "cut off Netscape's air supply," and was not aware of any actions that Microsoft ever took specifically to restrict Netscape's distribution of its browser.
Maritz told the Court that Netscape's goal of making its browser a platform that could serve as a development alternative to the Windows operating system posed a threat to Microsoft's business. Microsoft's response, said Maritz, was to offer consumers and developers a better platform - Web browsing functionality built into the Windows operating system - and to make it as widely available as possible.

January 22, 1999: Today the written testimony of Paul Maritz was released. Mr. Maritz is Microsoft's group vice president for platforms and applications, and the highest ranking Microsoft executive scheduled to testify at the trial.

January 21, 1999: Microsoft witness Richard Schmalensee answered Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's questions about his assertion that, despite the popularity of the Windows PC operating system, the company is prevented from gaining monopoly power because of dynamic, long-term competition that could displace it as the current industry leader. The courtroom took on the aspect of a classroom as Schmalensee frequently left the witness stand to refer to charts and graphs on a large projection screen. He took questions from both Judge Jackson and Microsoft attorney Richard Urowsky as he explained the economics of the case.

January 20, 1999: Economist Richard Schmalensee dealt a blow to the government's case by exposing the fundamental weaknesses of the allegation that Microsoft enjoys a monopoly in computer operating systems. Schmalensee told the Court that if Microsoft actually had the monopoly power attributed to it by the government, it would be charging many times more for its operating system - anywhere from $900 to $2000. On the contrary, Schmalensee said, Microsoft continues to innovate and charge a low price, "because in a business in which dynamic competition is important, that's how you compete." He added that monopoly power cannot be inferred either from high market share or high profits, especially in industries based on intellectual capital and in which distribution is relatively easy, such as software, movies, books and pharmaceuticals. The dynamics of such industries tend to establish clear leaders that tend to enjoy high market share and profits before being displaced by competitors, which then usually enjoy the same high profits and market share as their predecessors.

January 19, 1999: During his cross-examination of Richard Schmalensee, government attorney David Boies tried unsuccessfully to demonstrate that Microsoft had illegally "tied" two separate "products" - the Internet Explorer Web browsing technology and the Windows operating system - harming both competitors and consumers in the process. Schmalensee agreed that by integrating Web browsing technology into Windows, Microsoft had made it harder for Netscape to maintain its high share of users, but he said this was a result of competition, not anti-competitive acts. "Actions that are pro-competitive can make life unpleasant for competitors," Schmalensee noted. "That happens in the competitive process. So simply looking at impact on competitors does not get you to the impact on consumers." During cross-examination, Schmalensee also used survey data to show that Microsoft's gain in browser share did not change significantly the percentage of Internet users who use Netscape's browser.

January 14, 1999: Richard Schmalensee said that Microsoft's vulnerability to competing operating platforms refutes the government's claim that the company has a monopoly in operating systems - a point the government must prove to win its case and support its other allegations. He said Microsoft's awareness of its current and potential competition has helped constrain the company's prices, and spurred it to continually improve its products in order to maintain its success. Separately, a poll released today showed that 76 percent of American consumers believe that Microsoft is contributing to U.S. economic growth, and 73 percent believe that Microsoft has benefited U.S. consumers and the software industry.

January 13, 1999: Professor Franklin Fisher, the government's final witness, attempted to reverse a key part of his testimony from the previous day, in which he said Microsoft had done nothing to date to harm consumers. Fisher tried to revise his testimony by saying that Microsoft's actions have restricted consumer choice and resulted in higher prices. Previously, he had said only that Microsoft's actions might lead to those results in the future. While the government's case ended weakly, Microsoft began its case on a strong note, with its first witness testifying that the company does not have monopoly power as the government alleges. Professor Richard Schmalensee said Microsoft's power in the marketplace is restrained by growing competition from other operating systems and potential paradigm shifts that could eventually make Windows obsolete. He said that, just as the emergence of Java and Netscape's first Internet browser "changed the nature of the competition Microsoft faced," emerging operating systems and increasingly powerful handheld devices could eventually lead to a paradigm shift in the industry - one that would alter the competitive landscape and Microsoft's business.
Schmalensee said that "to rule out the possibility that those devices may emerge as a significant competitive threat . . . is to have a very constricted view of the dynamics of this industry. A competitor today? No. A competitor tomorrow? Quite possibly. And a symptom of the fluidity of this industry? Absolutely."
Separately, Microsoft urged Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson to end the antitrust lawsuit against the company, arguing that the government has failed to prove any of its allegations.