Sure, George Clooney's last episode of ER has probably been the most hyped-up event during this February Sweeps Month, but that doesn't mean that other shows shied away from the competition. Take, for example, the "verbal fireworks" that erupted in court during last Thursday's episode of "Redmond Justice." According to a Cox News Service article, the writers for the hottest antitrust courtroom drama on the air really have their mojo workin' now. Okay, so it was no school bus crash, but it's pretty hard to script automotive mayhem and severed limbs into an antitrust case (though, if there's a way to do it, our bets are on the "Redmond Justice" writers to be the ones to do it).

The show warmed up with the ever-lovable Judge Jackson (whose personality seems like some kind of hybrid between those of Judge Wapner and Lou Grant) openly questioning the veracity of Microsoft's latest witness, John Rose, a senior veep at Compaq. The issue at hand was whether or not Microsoft had threatened to cancel Compaq's Windows licensing agreement if the computer manufacturer didn't restore the Internet Explorer icon to the Desktop of its products. As evidence that Microsoft did nothing wrong, Rose produced what he claimed to be a copy of the agreement between the two companies, which he claimed showed that Microsoft was well within its rights. But Jackson was doubtful, stating that "the terms of [Compaq's] agreement with Microsoft make no sense to [him]," and questioned whether it was a "genuine" agreement. Furthermore, if the terms of the contract in question were agreed to in August of 1995, as Rose claimed, why was the actual contract not signed until June of 1996? According to Rose, it "took the lawyers and the contract people that long" to finalize the contract-- which involved the addition of two paragraphs. Clearly, the judge wasn't buying it, as the Washington Post described him as "incredulous" that such a change could take that long.

But wait, that's not all! That might be enough spice for a regular episode of "Redmond Justice," but the ratings this month are far too important to entrust to a single helping of Judge Jackson's trademark grumpiness. In addition, the writers threw in a brief skirmish between Boies and Compaq's lawyer, William Coston. Coston admirably fulfilled his role as guest star by exploding in indignant outbursts when Boies' attempts to discredit Compaq's testimony went so far as to accuse Compaq of violating a non-disclosure agreement they had signed with Be. Be, most of you will recall, is the upstart company led by ex-Apple exec Jean Louis Gassée, whose BeOS operating system is trying to play David to Windows' Goliath. Boies tried to paint Microsoft and Compaq as being "joined at the hip" by claiming that Compaq violated their NDA with Be to tip Microsoft off about the potential threat of the new OS. Coston played his role well, jumping up from his bench at the back of the courtroom and approaching the judge while accusing Boies of "sullying the firm's reputation by this allegation." Jackson called a recess to let things cool down and to give Boies a chance to name his source at Compaq in private. But when we returned from the commercial break, what did we find but Coston ripping into Boies again-- which prompted Boies to identify his source in open court. Whew! Does it get any better than this? Now that is Must-See TV.