America's No. 1 financial conglomerate

Chapter 415 A Massive Attack

The hearing continued, and the atmosphere gradually heated up as the questioning progressed. All eyes were on Bill Gates in the dock. In this legal battle that will reshape the global technology industry, every detail could affect the final verdict.

At this point, David Boyce shifted his focus to whether bundled sales constituted a market monopoly. He stared intently at Bill Gates and asked clearly, word by word, "Do you want users to perceive Internet Explorer as an integral part of the Windows operating system, thereby preventing them from installing other browsers, ultimately eliminating competitors and dominating the market? Is this the case?"

Bill Gates, without the slightest hesitation, immediately retorted, "The integration of the Windows operating system and the Internet Explorer browser is essentially an inevitable result of the development of information technology. It's a reasonable integration at the technical level, just like a car can't be without a steering wheel. Can a steering wheel be an optional extra when buying a car?"

He also called on a Microsoft engineer to testify, having the engineer explain in detail the technical aspects of the code integration from the witness stand, in an attempt to prove that bundling was not a business strategy.

After the Microsoft engineers finished testifying and left the witness stand, Bill Gates spoke again, his tone carrying a hint of rhetoric: "Before Google filed its appeal regarding the E browser bundling issue, I myself had no idea that Microsoft's product integration decision was suspected of monopolistic practices."

"That's why, after receiving Google's appeal, Microsoft immediately and decisively canceled its browser bundling policy. Isn't that enough to show that Microsoft never intended to monopolize the market through bundling?"

Hamilton frowned, watching the television screen, and said with a puzzled tone, "Judging from David Boyce's questioning style and Bill Gates' responses, why does it feel like David Boyce's questioning rhythm and angle..."

"Does this seem like an intentional or unintentional defense of Microsoft, or an endorsement of Microsoft?"

"He's just endorsing Microsoft," Ernst replied with certainty. "Everyone knows that in the case of Google's appeal regarding the IE browser bundling issue, Microsoft gained positive public opinion and regulatory approval by proactively removing the bundling, which is a plus."

"David Boyce's current questioning style, while seemingly sharp, cannot actually be taken as evidence of Microsoft's monopolistic behavior. On the contrary, to some extent, it is cooperating with Microsoft to guide public opinion towards the view that Microsoft has no subjective intention to monopolize. In essence, it is helping Microsoft gain the sympathy of the judge, jury and the public present, and reduce the pressure on Microsoft from antitrust charges."

Ernst's analysis was spot-on, and Hamilton was about to say it was unnecessary when Wenger suddenly interjected, "Microsoft's stock price has already begun to rise!"

Hamilton suddenly realized, a look of understanding spreading across his face. He said softly, "So this is David Boyce's real purpose in cooperating with Microsoft to gain sympathy!"

The capital markets are now focused on this hearing, and any signal favorable to Microsoft could boost investor confidence and drive up the stock price.

If he could see through David Boyce's true intentions, there's no reason why investors and institutions well-versed in capital market operations wouldn't.

It is estimated that many investors in the market have now realized that Microsoft will ultimately win this antitrust hearing, and have chosen to buy Microsoft stock at this time.

A hint of doubt flashed in Ernst's eyes; he had a feeling that things were not as simple as they seemed.

When, half an hour later, the two sides finally stopped focusing on the topic of tying up the issue, and David Boyce called out the first witness, the room erupted in uproar, completely shattering the previously relatively calm atmosphere of the hearing.

"How could it be him?" Hamilton could hardly believe his eyes. He stood up from the sofa uncontrollably, his face filled with shock and astonishment.

Wenger and Ernst weren't much better off. Wenger's eyes were wide open, his mouth slightly agape, and he couldn't utter a word for a long time. He was clearly also taken aback by the sudden turn of events.

Ernst remained quite composed, but a clear look of surprise appeared in his eyes. He leaned forward slightly, as if trying to confirm what he was seeing.

After a brief moment of surprise, he quickly regained his composure, and then said in a deep voice, "Are these Wall Street hyenas really so brazen?"

Who would have thought that the plaintiff's first witness would be Ron Oldman, a former vice president of Intel?

Everyone knows that Microsoft and Intel are as close as brothers, yet the first company to sue Microsoft is actually Intel.

The current situation has not only completely exceeded everyone's expectations, but does it also mean that the Wintel alliance may have cracked, or even broken down?

So now, not only will Microsoft's stock price rise back to its original level, but Intel's stock price will likely become a shadow of its former self.

Has Wall Street turned it into a tool for harvesting韭菜 (a metaphor for exploiting people)?

At the hearing, Ron Oldman first took an oath, and then, guided by David Boyce, began to give his testimony.

Last year, Microsoft threatened to withdraw support for Intel's newly developed chips to prevent Intel from advancing the development and commercialization of its Native Signal Processing (NSP) technology. At that time, Intel had made progress in NSP technology development and planned to apply it to its next-generation chip products to improve chip processing performance and functional versatility.

Aldman's remarks directly brought Microsoft's monopolistic practices to the forefront, providing concrete factual evidence for the antitrust allegations.

Following this, Aldman further elaborated on the specific situation at the time: "I clearly remember that Bill Gates personally called Mr. Grove and said that if Intel continued to advance the research and development and commercialization of NSP technology, then Microsoft would stop providing compatibility support for the Windows operating system for Intel's new generation of chips. This would mean that computer products equipped with Intel's new generation of chips would not be able to run the Windows operating system properly."

No sooner had Aldman finished testifying than Malcolm, head of Microsoft's legal department, stood up and asked the hearing judge for cross-examination: "Mr. Aldman, this is just normal pressure in business negotiations, not monopolistic behavior."

Malcolm attempted to undermine the strength of Aldman's testimony by redefining the nature of Microsoft's actions, transforming the monopoly into normal business negotiation, thereby weakening the plaintiff's evidence.

"No, that's a monopoly," Aldman raised his voice. "NSP technology allows developers to bypass Windows and directly..."

By sending graphics commands to the processor, Microsoft weakened Windows' central role in multimedia processing. Under this threat, Intel ultimately abandoned its NSP technology, and this technology, which could have increased computer speed by 30%, disappeared.

Aldman's response was impassioned, not only firmly refuting Malcolm's views but also further emphasizing the harm Microsoft poses to technological innovation and market competition.

Malcolm didn't rush to refute, but instead began by asking, "Mr. Aldman, according to your testimony, were you present during the call when Mr. Bill Gates called Mr. Grove, the president of Intel?"

Without the slightest hesitation, Aldman nodded and admitted, "That's right, I was in Mr. Grove's office at the time."

"Did you hear the whole speech?" Malcolm asked again.

Oldman hesitated for a moment, then shook his head. "But Grove complained to me about it himself after he hung up the phone."

Malcolm astutely grasped this crucial information and turned to the judge, saying, "Your Honor, you also heard Mr. Aldman's testimony. Mr. Aldman explicitly admitted that he did not hear the entire conversation between Mr. Bill Gates and Mr. Grove, but only drew conclusions based on Grove's complaints."

"He himself admitted that it was a complaint. Since it was a complaint, it was inherently accompanied by strong subjective emotions. Under the influence of emotions, there are often elements of exaggeration or distortion. I believe that Mr. Aldman's testimony lacks completeness and objectivity and cannot be used as valid evidence to prove that Microsoft has engaged in monopolistic practices."

Following Ron Oldman, the plaintiffs continued to call several witnesses to testify, including engineers from Sun Microsystems.

Former Apple employees and employees from almost every company that had a conflict with Microsoft were involved.

Until the last one to take the stage, Netscape CEO Jim Clark.

Ernst had initially assumed Netscape would defect, but the reality exceeded his expectations. Jim Clark not only failed to speak well of Microsoft, but instead intensified his attacks on the company.

After all the witnesses had been questioned, David Boyce pulled up a piece of evidence: "This is an email we found from a Microsoft executive in July 1996. In the email, he wrote, 'We want to cut off Netscape's air supply and force developers to optimize websites only for Internet Explorer through exclusive agreements and manipulation of web page compatibility, otherwise there will be garbled text.'"

David Boyce raised his voice a notch, "And the subsequent actions of Microsoft and the technical problems that arose with Netscape also prove this point."

He looked at Bill Gates and asked, "Mr. Gates, how do you explain this?"

Bill Gates shook his head. "There's nothing to explain."

Everyone thought he would confess so easily, but he changed his tune and said, "This was just his personal behavior; we were completely unaware of it."

Pointing to the evidence on the screen, Bill Gates said with a relaxed expression, "As you can all see, this email was sent from his personal email address, not a corporate email address. We fired him as soon as we learned of this."

David Boyce scoffed and presented another piece of evidence: "Microsoft not only bundled Internet Explorer with its operating system in the United States, attempting to monopolize the market, but also demanded that PC manufacturers pre-install Windows and Office in the European market, otherwise they would raise the price of the operating system."

"I also have a complaint letter from a Taiwanese manufacturer here. In it, they wrote: 'We either accept pre-installation or we lose our market share.'"

"Your Honor," David Boyce began his final statement, "According to Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act..."

The article argues that Microsoft's monopolistic practices have severely damaged market competition. It recommends breaking Microsoft into three companies: an operating systems company, an applications company, and an internet services company, to revitalize the market.

"This way, Microsoft can retain its technological capabilities while preventing it from using its monopoly on operating systems to suppress competitors."

Finally, David Boyce added, "Only in this way can consumers regain the right to choose, and developers be able to innovate in a level playing field."

Malcolm immediately stood up to object, his voice trembling with emotion, "I object! Breaking up would be devastating. Microsoft's success stems from technological integration; breaking up would only stagnate innovation."

But David Boyce seemed prepared, countering, "History has shown that monopolies stifle innovation. After AT&T broke up, the telecommunications industry experienced rapid growth; after Standard Oil broke up, oil prices actually fell. Microsoft's breakup will only revitalize the internet industry."

>