None of that, absent the kinds of accusations discussed in prior columns, should be held against it in this trial. Regardless of the consequences of bigness, by itself it raises no meaningful antitrust concerns. The second question is not so easy. One obvious answer is the heightened, but dwindling, level of interest from the media and the public in the trial and where it might lead. A tougher issue is whether Microsoft's size and importance is actually an advantage in this trial.
Most people today take the results of that breakup for granted.
We have the various baby Bells providing local phone service, serious competition in the long-distance market, cellular phone service, and the potential of competition in the local phone market. No one could be sure whether the quality of phone service would suffer from the breakup. Nevertheless, William Baxter, who at the time was the head of the Justice Department's antitrust division, made the tough decision without hesitation and did the deal. As I have already discussed, the testimony of the Intuit witness, Mr. Harris, strongly suggests that it is the government's plan to ask Judge Jackson to regulate Microsoft rather than break it up. If my assessment on this issue is correct, I strongly suspect the government is taking this approach not because it believes its case for a breakup is weak, but rather because it is concerned about the potential negative consequences of breaking up a company that is such a big player in the American high-technology industry.