In "Redmond Justice" news, we think it's safe to say that the tables have turned. In Judge Jackson's courtroom, Microsoft's legal team quickly pigeonholed itself as a pack of inept clowns, and Smilin' David Boies and the rest of the Justice Department mopped the floor with them for two solid years, to the delight and amusement of the entire viewing audience. But as we head into the appeal phase of this case, it's pretty clear that the U.S. Court of Appeals is siding early on with the Redmond gang.

Before this current case even got started, Microsoft had history on its side; the Appeals Court has sided with the company in two previous antitrust tussles. And then there was the way in which the Appeals Court responded so quickly to Microsoft's filing, stating that it would not only take the case, but also would expedite it by foregoing the usual three-judge panel and rocking out with a big ol' gaggle of seven judges right off the bat. That little stunt effectively short-circuited the government's plan to kick the case upstairs to the Supreme Court, who's far less likely to intervene now that the Appeals Court has shown such interest. So right away we have to assume that the "Redmond Justice" writers are going for a reversal of sympathies to try and liven things up a bit. It'll be exciting to see the government try to maneuver in a less favorable courtroom environment.

Still not convinced that the Appeals Court is squarely in Microsoft's corner? Well, according to CNET, the government may not have been sure either-- but they are now. The court that's setting itself up as the "anti-Jackson" just shot down the government's latest request: that the Appeals Court "cede jurisdiction" over the trial on the grounds that the way in which Microsoft requested a stay of its conduct restrictions didn't give Jackson a chance to rule on it. But it wasn't a total victory for Redmond, since the Appeals Court stopped short of trying to assume total control of the case; officially, Jackson's still in charge. And there's still a chance that the Supreme Court will step in and start breaking heads. At this stage, we'd say it's still anyone's game-- and isn't that all for the best, dramatically speaking?