<P> A number of videotapes were submitted as evidence by Microsoft during the trial, including one that demonstrated that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows caused slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows . In the videotaped demonstration of what then - Microsoft vice president Jim Allchin stated to be a seamless segment filmed on one PC, the plaintiff noticed that some icons mysteriously disappear and reappear on the PC's desktop, suggesting that the effects might have been falsified . Allchin admitted that the blame for the tape problems lay with some of his staff . "They ended up filming it--grabbing the wrong screen shot", he said of the incident . Later, Allchin re-ran the demonstration and provided a new videotape, but in so doing Microsoft dropped the claim that Windows is slowed down when Internet Explorer is removed . Mark Murray, a Microsoft spokesperson, berated the government attorneys for "nitpicking on issues like video production". Microsoft submitted a second inaccurate videotape into evidence later the same month as the first . The issue in question was how easy or hard it was for America Online users to download and install Netscape Navigator onto a Windows PC . Microsoft's videotape showed the process as being quick and easy, resulting in the Netscape icon appearing on the user's desktop . The government produced its own videotape of the same process, revealing that Microsoft's videotape had conveniently removed a long and complex part of the procedure and that the Netscape icon was not placed on the desktop, requiring a user to search for it . Brad Chase, a Microsoft vice president, verified the government's tape and conceded that Microsoft's own tape was falsified . </P> <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>

A 2000 ruling by a federal court found that microsoft