And so another chapter of "Redmond Justice" closes with a bang. Wednesday was Microsoft's deadline for filing its final response to the government's breakup plan, and, true to form, the company resorted to the trademark hyberbole and melodrama we've all grown to love. Faithful viewer Russell Maggio first pointed out a short Reuters article that summed up the company's stance very succinctly: Microsoft calls the government's plan so "defective," "vague," and "ambiguous" that it "defies comprehension." And Russell even beat us to the gratuitous cheap shot by noting that, "gee, that sounds more like a description of their operating system..." (Thank you, you've been a great audience! Tip your waitstaff! I'll be here all week!)

For a more in-depth analysis of Microsoft's latest filing, look no further than The Register, whose take on the subject was duly noted by faithful viewer Jerry O'Neil. Even if you ignore the obvious howlers as noted above, the rest of the company's brief is described as "strange in format and puzzling in intention." Of particular note is this fun little paradox: first Microsoft claims that it honestly and truly assumed that the May 24th hearing (at which the judge denied the request for six more months of hearings) "was to be the beginning-- not the end-- of proceedings on the issue of relief." Then Microsoft goes on to blow that statement out of the water by filing an already-signed Supplemental Offer of Proof "for use solely in the event the Court determined, as the government urged, to terminate the remedies phase of the trial without affording Microsoft discovery or an evidentiary hearing." So much for being caught off guard, right?

Other nuggets of joy include Microsoft's assurance that it had "secreted" nothing (ewwww-- do we really have to hear about Microsoft's secretions?), its argument that "foreign governments" might have to approve the breakup, its request that Windows CE and Windows 2000 Server be excluded from any remedy, its insistence that the two split companies be allowed to do mergers and acquisitions (as in, one merges with the other, perhaps?) and its steadfast claim that-- get this-- it doesn't want to be "forced to violate any laws in any jurisdiction." That last one had us spewing coffee all over the room. All told, there's plenty there to keep us entertained until Judge Jackson issues his final ruling, which could happen any day now. Stay tuned...