Microsoft trial: DOJ ahead at halftime
The government has dominated the high-stakes contest against the sometimes struggling legal team defending the software giant, commentators say.
Three months after the trial started in federal court in Washington, antitrust prosecutors are close to wrapping up presentation of their case, when Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Franklin Fisher, the government's 12th and final witness, will step out of the witness box. Microsoft tomorrow is expected to call its first witness, Richard Schmalensee, another MIT economist who, in written testimony yesterday provided a blistering rebuttal to allegations that Microsoft is a monopolist.
Legal observers are mixed about the performance of each side, but most appear to agree that the government is heading into the locker room having scored some valuable points.
"Looking at it from a halftime position, I would say that the government is way ahead on the score board," said Stephen Axinn, an antitrust litigator at Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider in New York City. While Microsoft has yet to present its defense, he said, the first half does not bode well for the Redmond, Washington, software company.
"The funny thing about antitrust trials is that the defendant needs to win during the plaintiff's case," he explained. "There's very little chance to win during [presentation of] its own case."
"The government has probably laid the foundation for prevailing on some of the conduct issues [alleged] and establishing that Microsoft does have monopoly power," added William Kovacic, a visiting George Washington University professor specializing in antitrust law.
The Justice Department (DOJ) and 19 states allege that the behavior is part of a pattern that violates antitrust laws. Highlights of the trial, which began October 19, include the following:
• Testimony from a senior Intel executive that Microsoft made "credible and fairly terrifying" threats if the chip giant didn't kill certain software projects. The government bolstered those claims by presenting email Microsoft chief executive Bill Gates sent to his Intel counterpart, Andy Grove, saying it was "inappropriate" for his company to design Java software that might compete with the software giant.
• Testimony from Apple Computer senior executive Avadis Tevanian that Microsoft tried to "sabotage" QuickTime, a popular multimedia program, by causing misleading error messages to appear when it ran on Windows-based machines. Apple's vice president of software engineering, Tevanian also said that Microsoft proposed that it split the multimedia software market with Apple, a charge that echoes claims made by Netscape Communications' chief executive earlier in the trial.
• Testimony from America Online vice president David Colburn and others that Microsoft used its software dominance to forbid partners from promoting Netscape's Navigator browser. In addition to AOL, content providers such as Walt Disney and CNET: The Computer Network (publisher of News.com) were required to "promote [Internet Explorer] and no other browser." Similarly, Internet service providers were required to not promote Netscape's browser and adhere to strict distribution quotas.
Most of the commentators said the judge also was likely to find that Microsoft abused its monopoly through exclusive contracts and attempts to kill off competing technologies. Also posing a serious threat to Microsoft are the market division allegations, said Lewis Noonberg, an attorney at Piper & Margery.
Still, not everyone is applauding the government for the case it has presented. "The government has fallen short in establishing a strong record evidencing a Sherman Act violation. Hardball tactics do not a Sherman Act violation make," said Hillard Sterling, an attorney who represented Staples and Office Depot in a proposed merger that was ultimately blocked by the Federal Trade Commission.
Sterling explained that the government's case has lacked focus ever since a federal court of appeals in June upheld the integration of Internet Explorer and Windows. The ruling undermined a key legal theory in the government's case and sent prosecutors scrambling for new theories to salvage it.
Nonetheless, Microsoft's expected motion to dismiss the case, a common maneuver by defendants after a plaintiff rests it case, will almost certainly fail, Sterling said. "Judge Jackson has exhibited a consistent disbelief and even anger at Microsoft," the lawyer, a partner at Gordon & Glickson, noted. "It is likely that he will rule against Microsoft even under this feeble record offered by the government."
"Microsoft has to show that what looks on its face as a purely exclusionary contract actually had a consumer benefit," said Eleanor Fox, a professor of law at New York University. Similarly, she added, "as to every single incident, it will claim that it has a consumer benefit and/or everyone else in the industry was doing the same thing."