FRS 147     The Microsoft Case: Antitrust in the Internet Age
Princeton University
Prof. Edward W. Felten
Fall 1999

Reading for November 15, 1999

Visitor: Steve Holtzman, DOJ Lawyer

Please read the material listed below, and come to class ready to discuss the questions listed.

Investigating Microsoft: How do you gather evidence in a case like this?

READING:

Deposition of Joachim Kempin (Senior Vice President in charge of dealing with OEMs (PC manufacturers), Microsoft Corporation, 10/1/98) :

22:25-24:12, 150:20-154:4, 154:23-158:3, 158:15-159:12, 226:9-229:19, 243:7-244:1, 275:9-282:9.

List of depositions taken after the case was filed (broken down by category, who scheduled the deposition) [to be supplied later]

QUESTIONS:

Why do you think the Government took Kempin’s deposition? Based on the excerpts, do you think it achieved its objectives? Did I make any mistakes in conducting the deposition?

Based on the list of depositions, can you infer anything about Microsoft’s possible objectives for gathering evidence? About our objectives?

Shaping and bringing the case: How to decide what to include, what to ask for, and how to argue it

READING:

Prayer for Relief, on pages 50-53 of US Complaint, 5/98

Introduction, on pages 1-13 of US Preliminary Injunction Memo, 5/98

Introduction, on pages 1-13 of US Response to Microsoft Summary Judgment Motion, 8/98

U.S. and Microsoft witness designation lists/descriptions, 9/98

QUESTIONS:

How well do you think the Prayer for Relief matched up with the allegations made in the Government’s case (see Preliminary Injunction memo, earlier classes)?

What do you think of the Prayer for Relief? Does it make sense? Would it make a good remedy for Microsoft’s conduct?

Between May 1998 (Preliminary Injunction memo) and August 1998, did anything change about the Government’s allegations?

What if any logic do you see in each side’s witness lists? Why did each side structure its witness list in the way it did? If you could choose witnesses, what would you have tried to do differently?

Putting on Witnesses at Trial

READING:

Rebuttal testimony of Professor Felten, 6/10/99: morning, afternoon. (We read much of this previously; review the parts we read, if necessary.)

QUESTIONS:

What do you think the Government’s objectives were for Professor Felten’s rebuttal testimony? How well did it (and he) achieve those objectives?

Cross-Examining Witnesses at Trial

READING:

Excerpts from cross-examination of Bob Muglia, 2/26/99PM

21:3-22:23; 27:20-29:15; 36:18-40:22; 42:17-49:3; 50:6-58:23; 65:9-71:21; 79:4-80:15; 90:20-98:16

QUESTIONS:

Based on the excerpts, what do you think the Government’s objectives for cross-examining Mr. Muglia were? How well did it achieve them?