aign, a list that includes IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Netscape, Sun, and many others. These companies transact business in, and employ citizens of each of the plaintiff states. Those facts compelled the Court to find against Microsoft. Counsel for the DefenseDespite their surprise of conviction, Microsofts attorneys were promptly able to tender a thirty-five page Offer of Proof, summarizing in detail the testimony that sixteen witnesses would give to explain why the plaintiffs proposed remedy, as it stands, is a bad idea. Within a week, seven more witnesses were added to the list. In light of this, two states dissented from the imposition of structural remedies but fully supported the rest of the correcting proposal. In Microsofts view, this called into question the collaborative character of the process used in determining the final judgement.Microsofts legal strategy refuted the plaintiffs position on seventy separate points of law. First and foremost, the defense felt that the plaintiffs failed to prove an unlawful tying arrangement that violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. They sought to prove this point by illustrating that: Windows 98 is a single, integrated product no OEM was forced to purchase a second distinct product the alleged tie does not prevent a substantial amount of sales of the tied product The defense also asserted that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Microsoft entered into unlawful exclusive dealing agreements in Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, i.e., that the plaintiffs failed to establish the Requisite Degree of Foreclosure. Since the Court had already determined what the applicable standard was in finding for an exclusive dealings claim and found in Microsofts favor, the industry giant had hoped to use this chink in the plaintiffs armor.Because the challenged agreements did not prohibit Netscapes access to users of web browsing software, Microsofts defense team ...
