Sometimes in the Microsoft trial, life imitates art. Or rather, life imitates popular television comedy-dramas.
Take the testimony of Mr Dan Rosen, Microsoft's general manager for new technology, who at times last Monday contradicted himself, his own memos, other Microsoft managers, and even his boss, Mr Bill Gates.
As a result, in a move worthy of an episode of lawyer drama Ally McBeal, the US Department of Justice lawyer Mr David Boies abruptly halted his cross-examination of Mr Rosen in mid-sentence and allowed Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson to dismiss the witness. He later said he felt that Mr Rosen had contradicted himself sufficiently to no longer require questioning.
Mr Rosen's testimony was thought to be crucial in establishing the exact nature of a meeting in June 1995 held between Microsoft and Netscape, a competitor in the Internet browser market. Netscape has alleged that Microsoft sought to illegally pressure it to split the browser market between the two companies.
But Mr Rosen, incredibly, argued that the two companies were not even rivals at the time. Indeed, he added, "I never heard people talk about a browser battle."
The phrase "browser battle" - occasionally relieved by its alternate form, "battle of the browsers" - was perhaps the single most frequent grouping of words to appear in technology news, Internet discussion lists, and between consenting adults over double lattes at Starbuck's in 1995.
Another Mr Rosen gem came when he was queried about a key 1995 memo sent by Mr Gates, entitled The Internet Tidal Wave. Mr Gates warned about a new competitor named Netscape, which already had 70 per cent market share for its browser. But Mr Rosen, who had been in discussions with Netscape CEO Mr Jim Barksdale, argued that he believed the memo was wrong.
Let me rephrase that. He said he believed Mr Gates to be wrong. "I probably had a better perception than Mr Gates did on Netscape's intentions," he said. Mr Gates is referred to as Chairman Bill for a good reason: He is always right. A fortune surpassing $60 billion (€54.5 billion), much of it acquired in the years since the advent of the Net, probably argues for Mr Gates's knowledge of the Web and his competitors as well.
In another perky bit of testimony, Mr Rosen denied he believed the contents of a memo he wrote several weeks before the Gates memo, in which Mr Rosen also described Netscape as a "threat". Then he denied he sent it - although it was labelled "Sent Monday, May 15, 1995". Microsoft itself admitted the memo was retrieved from the recipient box of a Microsoft executive. Mr Rosen argued he then must only have sent it to that one person and not all the others clearly contained in the destination addresses.
Mr Rosen also sought to define what he meant by the term "ownership" in an email he'd sent to Mr Gates in June 1995 following the Netscape/Microsoft meeting. According to the e-mail, Mr Rosen said a key goal of the meeting was to "establish Microsoft ownership of the Internet . . . platform" for Windows 95.
The word "ownership" has become a central arguing point for each side in the trial. The Department of Justice insists the word shows Microsoft's intention to control the desktop and crush Netscape. But, said Mr Rosen, inside Microsoft "ownership" meant delivering products as promised, on time.
According to the account of the moment in the San Jose Mercury News: "Jackson interjected: `Ownership means delivering on something you promised?' Rosen said yes. Jackson rolled his eyes and rocked his chair all the way back until he was nearly prone, staring up at the ceiling for nearly a minute as the cross-examination continued."
Microsoft's lawyers have had months to work with witnesses on the nature of their testimony and how it should be presented. Coming in the wake of the three embarrassing staged videos which have already damaged Microsoft's credibility, Mr Rosen has been a disaster. At the same time, he has offered an interesting insight into the internal debates which must have taken place in 1995, a point at which Microsoft was only just, and very belatedly, beginning to understand the Internet. Mr Gates, of course, earlier had famously dismissed the medium as unimportant to the company.
It will be interesting to see how Microsoft attempts to thrash its way out of this particular quagmire when closing arguments are presented in April. In the meantime, Mr Rosen may be receiving a summons to come and have a little chat with Bill.
Karlin Lillington is at klillington@irish-times.ie
