The two sides in the Microsoft Corp. antitrust case yesterday squared off one last time to deliver closing arguments before U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. Now Jackson must decide whether Microsoft is a bullying monopolist that squashed competition and stifled innovation or a software company struggling to survive like many others in a highly competitive industry. Microsoft got the last word yesterday in closing arguments in its antitrust case, describing the government's lawsuit as a meritless action, built on hearsay evidence and designed to shield the company's largest rivals, IBM and Sun Microsystems Inc., from competition. Before the largely impassive and mostly silent judge, the two sides in the antitrust case completed their closing arguments.
Consumers pick winners or losers under our system.
But William Neukom, Microsoft's general counsel, expressed confidence in his company's case. In a packed ceremonial courtroom designed for large crowds, Jackson was uncharacteristically quiet and didn't probe any of the assertions made by attorneys on either side. At that meeting, the government alleges Microsoft attempted to strike a deal with Netscape that would have divided the Internet browser market between the two companies, giving Microsoft control of the browser market for Windows 95. Netscape, in turn, would agree to confine itself to the browser market for Apple Computer Inc. systems and earlier versions of Windows. But Warden challenged every aspect of the government's characterization of the meeting, accusing Marc Andreessen, Netscape's co-founder, of fabricating notes of the meeting.