Microsoft was behaving "like a worm squirming away from the light" in court last week, said one insider.
Early in the week, more of Bill Gates' videotaped testimony was shown which "filled the court with laughter", according to a source close to the case.
Government lawyers attempted to pin Gates down on what he meant by saying "winning Internet browser market share is a very, very important goal for us", which was in an Email sent from Gates to Microsoft vice president Paul Maritz in January 1996.
Gates dithered over definitions of "browser market share" and "non-Microsoft browser", and in desperately trying to clarify a point ended up "muddying his own case", said the source.
As the week progressed, the government introduced three new witnesses to its case - John Soyring, IBM's director of network computing, Glenn Weadock, president of Independent Software and Warren Boulton, chief economist in the Reagan administration's antitrust division.
Soyring took the stand and claimed that Microsoft crushed any opportunity that OS/2 might have had of becoming a successful operating system through its anti-competitive licensing agreements with developers.
Microsoft dismissed these claims as sour grapes. Oliver Roll, Microsoft's UK director of product marketing, said: "IBM spent too much time optimising OS/2 for its own hardware and not investing in its developers and now it realises that."
Weadock then took the stand and stated that Microsoft had woven IE into its Windows operating system in a way that makes the browser impossible to remove.
Microsoft lawyers sought to undermine Weadock's credibility by saying that hundreds of companies wanted a browser tied in with the operating system.
Finally, Warren Boulton, chief economist, testified that Microsoft meets four key definitions of a monopoly whose predatory practices hurt consumers.
Four reasons why Microsoft is a monopoly, according to Warren Boulton
- Its computer operating systems have had a stable market share of more than 90% since the early 1990s, with no change in sight.
- Barriers to competition are very high; it would be difficult, if not impossible, for another company to successfully introduce another operating system.
- The pattern of operating system prices, which have gone up over the past ten years as prices for other parts of a computer have plummeted, together with Microsoft's profit margins and the market value of Microsoft's equity, are consistent with a company possessing monopoly power.
- Microsoft has engaged in conduct, such as successfully threatening computer manufacturers with the loss of a Windows licence if they hide Microsoft's Web browser icon on the desktop, that would not be effective if it did not possess a monopoly power.
Dr Kuan Hon criticises GDPR consent emails that will only eviscerate marketing databases and 'media misinformation'
Apple squashes Steam Link app on 'business conflicts' grounds
Philip Hammond wants to forget rules that the UK agreed with the EU to ban non-European companies from the satellites
Instapaper to 'go dark' in Europe until it can work out GDPR compliance