When last we checked in on "Redmond Justice," we stated that what started out as funny had just become sad and pathetic. We were referring to the way in which every time Microsoft introduced some new videotaped evidence, government lawyers found some way to show it as being somehow questionable. First there was the tape of the "de-Internet-Explorerized" Windows 98 taking a very long time to access the Internet-- which government lawyer David Boies pointed out must have used footage of multiple computers spliced together. Microsoft was forced to admit that the take was an "illustration" and not an actual test. Then Microsoft introduced a tape showing that Windows 98 lets a user sign up for an Internet service provider much more quickly than Windows 3.1 does. Boies got them to admit that the Windows 3.1 computer had a slower modem than the Windows 98 machine, rendering that test suspect as well. And Microsoft's latest video evidence reveals how easy it is for a Windows 98 user to download and install a competing browser, such as Netscape Navigator. Unfortunately, once again Boies claimed that Microsoft had stacked the deck in their own favor, using a high-speed Internet connection that few real customers would have. He also accused them of editing out several important steps in the process.

Are you up to speed now? Good. So now the latest installment of our favorite courtroom drama reveals that Microsoft veep Brad Chase admits that the last tape was, in fact, an inaccurate portrayal of the downloading and installation process for Netscape Navigator. According to a CNET article, the Department of Justice prepared their own video, showing what it's really like to download and install another browser-- and it took "between 30 minutes and an hour." It also included several steps that weren't shown in Microsoft's tape, such as manually putting a shortcut icon of Navigator on the Windows desktop. Last week, Chase claimed that the icon would magically appear once the download was completed, but now he admits that he was wrong. Chase agrees that the government's tape "accurately portrayed" the process that Microsoft's demonstration showed as overly easy.

We are now firmly convinced that Microsoft is trying to lose this case. There have been far too many "blunders" since the whole thing began; Microsoft's lawyers are reportedly among the best in the business (well, okay, make that the best paid in the business) and yet their defense could only have been crafted by the third-generation idiot mutant inbred offspring of the Three Stooges and the Twiddle Bugs that live in Ernie's flowerbox on Sesame Street. So what's the deal? We have to assume that Bill Gates is trying to get Microsoft broken up into "Baby Bills," which likely wouldn't do a thing to affect the Windows monopoly, but would almost certainly make Mr. Gates even more money than he has now. Heck, if it worked for Rockefeller and Standard Oil in 1911...