WASHINGTON -- At first blush, it's hard to understand why the U.S. Department of Justice ever decided to introduce John Soyring's forgettable whine about OS/2's even more forgettable fate in the marketplace into evidence.
But there's clearly method to the government's madness in putting the IBM exec on the stand -- and you can sum it up in two words: Monopoly power.
Lead DOJ attorney David Boies is confident he can make the charge stick, and even as Microsoft sought to demolish the testimony of the witness from IBM, the cocksure legal eagle was walking around Wednesday flashing four aces.
Not that his optimism had anything to do with Wednesday's court proceedings. In a second day of tedious testimony, a plodding Soyring had only mixed success tap dancing through a tough cross-examination, as Microsoft lawyer Steven Holley successfully elicited a couple embarrassing admissions:
One: That Big Blue had imposed restrictions on IBM OS/2 operating system developers that were eerily reminiscent of the shackles Microsoft put on Windows developers.
Two: That there are big benefits of browser-OS integration to computer users. (Holley also got Soyring to show up his bosses in Armonk by admitting that IBM's browser-OS/2 integration was more apparent than real.)
Any unlucky soul forced to sit through this bore-a-thon doubtless found Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson again providing far more entertainment. (I counted him nodding off 11 times before the lunch break.)
All about monopoly
To be sure, Soyring was just a prop for the government, which is setting the stage for its prime-time charge.
"This case is about monopoly," a government source told me during an afternoon break. He said the strategy is to convince the judge that Microsoft abused its position as the industry's dominant supplier of operating systems -- and that even a colossus like IBM was no match for Microsoft.
"If a company like IBM, the biggest software company in the world, with all those thousands of developers, couldn't break into the market, that's where Soyring's testimony becomes important," the source said.
Of course, Microsoft painted IBM as a jealous rival out to use the DOJ to gain what it failed to realize in the marketplace. And then to finish off his interrogation with a ridiculously melodramatic flourish, Holley charged IBM with being part of a six-company cabal colluding to compete with Microsoft.
Talking in Stengel-ese
That was to be expected. From the very first day of this trial, Microsoft has strenuously resisted any suggestion that it enjoys anything resembling a monopoly.
My favorite is the company's top attorney, John Warden, who kept a straight face despite resorting to the sort of verbal summersaults that I thought went out with the late, great Casey Stengel.
But on Wednesday, the government brought in testimony from an economist whose research indeed finds that Microsoft enjoys a monopoly -- and may significantly harm customers if allowed to crush its rivals in the browser market.
In a 116-page report, the expert witness, Frederick Warren-Boulton, offered ample evidence to critics who have complained that the cumulative effect of the software maker's actions is to curtail browser competition.
Ivory-tower insults
Microsoft derided Warren-Boulton as living in an ivory tower and being a novice about the ways of business. (I could think of worse insults.)
It will be interesting to see how well Warren-Boulton holds up to cross-examination. In order to convince Judge Jackson that Microsoft was indeed guilty of predatory practices, the prosecution must first demonstrate that Gates & Co. are monopolists.
And that's where the good Dr. Warren-Boulton will loom large.
