Let's say, just for a second, that you're in charge of a multibillion-dollar software company that got in trouble with the feds for blatantly breaking antitrust laws like a sixteen-wheeler through so much plate glass. In this hypothetical situation, your company has been less than diligent about covering its tracks, so evidence against you is easier to come by than cheap logo pens at a trade show. It doesn't help matters any that your legal team irritates the judge, doctors evidence (and gets caught at it-- multiple times), and just generally handles the case so poorly, you probably would have lost even if it had been an easy one. So, of course, you lose, and lose big. You file the inevitable appeal, and the feds immediately punt it upstairs to the Supreme Court. Now, here's the big question: given how badly they muffed your trial case, do you really want the same bunch of clowns defending you for a speeding violation, let alone acting as your sole legal support as your antitrust appeal goes before the highest court in the land?

On a completely unrelated note, we tuned into "Redmond Justice" the other night just to see what was shakin', and we noticed a Bloomberg News article which reports that Microsoft has hired some new lawyers for its antitrust appeal. Apparently the company signed up the law firm of Sidley & Austin to represent it as the case goes before the Supreme Court. One of the lawyers at that firm, Carter Phillips, is a hotshot when it comes to Supreme Court litigation-- he's got a slew of experience in that venue, and was in fact part of the team that won last week's ruling upholding Miranda rights. "He brings a unique expertise in Supreme Court cases," said Microsoft rep Jim Cullinan.

But don't fret, fans; just because Phillips is signing on doesn't mean Microsoft's existing legal team is getting the boot. Phillips is just going to join forces with the company's current firm of Sullivan & Cromwell (complete with the lovely and talented John Warden) and lend a hand when a little Supreme Court savvy is needed. According to the article, "the decision doesn't indicate a lack of confidence in Warden and his firm." Why, of course not. Who would ever think such a thing?