And they often worry that consumers ultimately end up with shabby products and services when the government requires dominant players to pull punches. For Microsoft to suggest that such conduct is permissible because others broke the law, he said, is a bit like bank robbers telling cops they should go free because their accomplices got away. That means they might have a problem, but it doesn't bear on whether Microsoft has a problem. U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who has come out against Microsoft in some key procedural rulings, is unlikely to be swayed by the firm's reasoning, experts say, because an extensive body of law requires dominant companies to play by tougher rules. That's why these meetings between AOL and Netscape are absolutely irrelevant to this case.
Different standards apply.
In his opening statement and through cross-examinations, Warden has contended that Microsoft isn't dominant enough to be tagged a monopolist. And even if it is, he has maintained, nothing the company has said or done at meetings with competitors violated antitrust law. Further, neither consumers nor competitors were hurt by any of Microsoft's actions, Warden has argued, and without damage the government can't prevail. In other words, the company wasn't speeding, and even if it was speeding, everybody else on the highway was going just as fast. And speed notwithstanding, no one was injured.