This case is forward-looking enough, dealing with the Internet and other technologies, that the outcome won't be useless once it's all over.

I think it strongly suggests they (Netscape) believe the (proposed) settlement will not restore competition in the market, that it's not enough for their needs.

If Microsoft wants to paint a picture of judge that is biased, this gives them a little more ammunition.

I don't think they want to be perceived as doing a lay-down in some kind of face-saving settlement, especially where that won't end the case, with the states going forward.

I had expected there to be some more hearings. I would have expected him to entertain witnesses, but not engage in the full-fledged discovery that Microsoft wanted. That would have given them a little victory, and to the extent where if the court of appeals disagrees with him, it would be on the merits, not the process.

If they don't do it in this case, I can't imagine why they would ever do it.

The purpose is so that important cases brought by the government can get definitive resolution quickly and be sped to the top of the ladder. This is the most important case that the government has brought in a generation, so I think it bears the strongest chance.

I was a little surprised at the tone. It was stark, dramatic and unequivocal.