<P> When the judge ordered Microsoft to offer a version of Windows which did not include Internet Explorer, Microsoft responded that the company would offer manufacturers a choice: one version of Windows that was obsolete, or another that did not work properly . The judge asked, "It seemed absolutely clear to you that I entered an order that required that you distribute a product that would not work?" David Cole, a Microsoft vice president, replied, "In plain English, yes . We followed that order . It wasn't my place to consider the consequences of that ." Microsoft vigorously defended itself in the public arena, arguing that its attempts to "innovate" were under attack by rival companies jealous of its success, and that government litigation was merely their pawn (see public choice theory). A full - page ad run in The Washington Post and The New York Times on June 2, 1999, by The Independent Institute delivered "An Open Letter to President Clinton From 240 Economists On Antitrust Protectionism ." It said, in part, "Consumers did not ask for these antitrust actions--rival business firms did . Consumers of high technology have enjoyed falling prices, expanding outputs, and a breathtaking array of new products and innovations...Increasingly, however, some firms have sought to handicap their rivals by turning to government for protection . Many of these cases are based on speculation about some vaguely specified consumer harm in some unspecified future, and many of the proposed interventions will weaken successful U.S. firms and impede their competitiveness abroad ." </P> <P> Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86 - based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Software, RealNetworks, Linux, and others . Judgment was split in two parts . On April 3, 2000, he issued his conclusions of law, according to which Microsoft had committed monopolization, attempted monopolization, and tying in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act . Microsoft immediately appealed the decision . </P> <P> On June 7, 2000, the court ordered a breakup of Microsoft as its "remedy". According to that judgment, Microsoft would have to be broken into two separate units, one to produce the operating system, and one to produce other software components . </P> <P> The trial was also notable for the use by both the prosecution and the defense of professors of MIT to serve as expert witnesses to bolster their cases . Richard L. Schmalensee, a noted economist and the dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management, testified as an expert witness in favor of Microsoft . Franklin Fisher, another MIT economist who was Schmalensee's former doctoral thesis adviser, testified in favor of the Department of Justice . </P>

In the 2000 decision on the microsoft antitrust case the eventual remedy involved a