David Boies' Press Conference.
Re: DOJ v. Microsoft II, Case No. 98-CV-1232, 1233.  Mr. Boies spoke with the press on the front steps of the U.S. Courthouse in Washington DC after the hearing on Microsoft's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Date: September 11, 1998.
Source: This document was created by transcribing an audio tape.

Question:  Are we going to see you in ten days time?

Boies:  Yes.

Question:  Would you tell us about it?

Boies:  This was a preview of what you're ... [interrupted by laughter]

Question:  What happened in chambers, between you guys and the Judge?

Boies:  That was a case management discussion.  The parties are going to talk some more about case management, probably later today.  Other than that, there is really nothing I can talk about.

Question:  Is there going to be a possible delay in the trial?

Boies:  The parties are talking about case management, talking about scheduling.   Those kind of issues need to be discussed between the parties.  I don't think that that is the kind of thing to talk about publicly until we have had a chance to talk among ourselves.

Question:  What did  you accomplish this morning?  What was your desire?   And what did you accomplish?

Boies:  Well, my desire was not to have the case dismissed.  Whether we accomplished that or not, the Judge will tell us.

Question:  The fact that Microsoft is making, talking about case management, and so forth, give you an indication that they don't think the Judge is going to rule favorably, or is this just a fall back plan for them?

Boies:  I don't think you want to read anything into it.  I think that it would be common this close to trial, both for the defendant to make a motion for summary judgment, and for the defendant to be taking about scheduling.

Question:  We also got some notion of the positions, in the documents, that have changed.  Can you tell us about that?  What is in them?  What ...

Boies:  I, I can't really discuss them beyond what we did in the papers, and in court.  They are still subject to confidentiality orders.  So, until those confidentiality orders are lifted, or until the actual trial, I can't really talk about the content of them other what we said in court.

Houck:  ...

Question:  Mr. Boies, could you summarize in fact what you told the Court this morning from that evidence.

Boies: Well, what we told the Court was that, the depositions and the documents, in our view, represented a very clear and convincing story of how Microsoft had attempted to maintain unlawfully a monopoly of operating systems, and extend that monopoly into Internet browsers, and that a number of the acts that Microsoft has engaged in, both violated Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Question:  ...

Houck:  ...

[exchange with Houck about witness lists, and Bill Gates not being a witness.]

Boies:  Each side has twelve.  And we have listed our twelve.  We have an option to change, but I don't think that with a limit of twelve, we would be using one of our twelve to bring in their Chief Executive Officer.

Question: Mr. Boies, one of the things that kept coming up, that Mr. Warden kept mentioning, was this idea of Netscape being a ward of the Justice Department, or a ward of the federal government.  Can you respond to that please?

Boies:  Not other than what we responded to in there.  Obviously, this case was brought to protect consumer interests in terms of promoting competition.  The reason that you try to stop somebody from illegally maintaining a monopoly or extending that monopoly into other markets is to protect consumers.  The only way to protect consumers is to protect the process of competition.  And, if you allow a monopolist to eliminate all competitors, you've eliminated the competition.  That is what the antitrust laws [inaudible word].

Question: One of the things that you said, and you didn't actually say it in these words, but you seem to be saying that Microsoft was choosing to integrate things not to innovate, but to kill competitors.  Is that the way you guys see their, their argument about their, their level of innovation?

Boies:  I am not sure I would use the term "innovation."  I think that you are basically correct in what we were saying in there was that, if what Microsoft is doing is not for the purpose of competition on the merits, not for the purpose of innovation, giving consumers better products at lower prices, but for the purpose of harming competition.

Question:  [inaudible]

Boies:  This is not a case involving anybody attempting to put restrictions on innovation.  This is a case in which what is involved is predominantly issues like predatory pricing, issues like exclusive dealing arrangements, issues like contracts that forbid distributors to pay competitors money, issues that forbid competitors from engaging in certain commercial activities, issues that forbid companies from dealing with some of Microsoft's competitors on equal terms.  Those are not issues of innovations.   Those are not issues even of primarily product design.  Those are straightforward anticompetitive exclusionary practices.