Don't look now, but "Redmond Justice" is heating up again. Ever since Microsoft was found guilty of violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the case entered the nebulous netherworld of the appeals process, the show has consisted mostly of this tedious business of duelling brief-filings that, frankly, holds less drama than half an hour of the Home Shopping Network. But things are getting juicy again, as oral arguments in the Trial of the Century (uh, last century) kicked into high gear on Monday. Those of you who have been following this little story from the beginning might be able to fight the encroaching senility long enough to recall that while Judge Jackson clearly wasn't going to cut the Redmond team any breaks, the appeals court seemed a lot more Microsoft-friendly. Whether or not that estimation still holds true depends entirely on your point of view.

For instance, if you take a look at what a Reuters article had to say about the first day of arguments, you might conclude that the judges all showed up wearing Bill Gates t-shirts and lighting their cigars with large bills bearing the seal of the Bank of Redmond. Reportedly the seven-judge panel "reserved most of its skepticism for the government," with one judge going so far as to say that a corporate breakup would just "replace one monopoly with another." Several crucial points of the government's case came under heavy fire, including the assertion that Microsoft intended to maintain its monopoly by crushing Netscape, whether or not Netscape really had suffered from predatory practices since its browser remained readily available, and whether consumers had really been harmed by Microsoft forcing computer manufacturers not to remove Internet Explorer in favor of any other browser. Furthermore, it's clear that Judge Jackson doesn't have many fans on the panel, who cast doubt upon his findings of fact.

On the other hand, if you mosey on over to The Register's coverage instead, you don't need to read any further than the headline "Microsoft lawyer hectored by appellate judges" to determine that those folks have an entirely different spin on the matter. The Register's focus is on the skepticism levelled at Microsoft attorney Richard Urowsky after he had been flatly informed that a reversal was more or less out of the question. We don't envy the position of any man who needs to stand up in court and keep a straight face while claiming that Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows didn't actually harm Netscape; that said, the man chose his battle, so he deserves whatever he gets. Personally, we're just happy that the action is starting up again, because we'd almost forgotten the giddy thrill of a heated courtroom antitrust debate. Here's looking forward to more of the same...