While we've dreaded this moment from the beginning, at times we thought it would never come... We're actually nearing the end of "Redmond Justice." Well, okay, we're really just nearing the end of the courtroom testimony-- there's still probably at least a couple of months left before Judge Jackson delivers his verdict, assuming that Microsoft doesn't break down and agree to a settlement in the meantime. And if they don't settle and they lose (a conclusion foreshadowed by the drama's writers so heavily it borders on mania), you can definitely expect a sequel in the form of an appeal. Still, the last witness is on the stand, and it's sort of a sad occasion for us-- even though saying MIT economist Richard Schmalensee's name out loud definitely makes us feel happier.

And gleefully shouting "SCHMALENSEE!" isn't the only thing bringing a smile to our lips. There's also the fact that Schmalensee was supposed to be Microsoft's big, government-toppling finish, but instead he provided paper-thin arguments that Judge Jackson himself questioned aloud; read all about it in USA Today. For one thing, Schmalensee asserted that Microsoft's giving away of Internet Explorer for free when competitor Netscape was selling Navigator for $39 didn't count as "predatory pricing" because Microsoft didn't lose any money in the short term with the expectation of recouping costs after the competition was destroyed. His argument is that Microsoft didn't really lose the hundreds of millions of dollars they spent on IE development by giving the browser away, since they would have made that money back if IE "sparked a mere 3% jump in Windows sales." But who buys Windows because it includes IE? And what about Macintosh and UNIX versions of IE-- how exactly is giving those away supposed to increase Windows sales? The judge was clearly not impressed.

Schmalensee also lost points when he implied that it was not a good idea to consider the scads of email evidence which shows Microsoft's intent was to crush Netscape by giving away IE and bundling it with Windows. For economists to "focus on intent," said he, is "slippery and fraught with peril." Um, sir? You're in a courtroom. Little issues like whether or not Microsoft intended to kill Netscape by illegally wielding monopoly power tend to matter there, so focusing on intent is kind of a big deal-- and the judge stated as such when he responded, "you know that's what courts do every day." Ah, Judge Jackson-- ever the poker face, yes? Sounds like Microsoft may have gotten a "big finish" after all-- in one sense of the phrase.