The famous antitrust case of the United States v. Microsoft was supposed to be a slaughter. The Justice Department brought an uncertain and convoluted case against a giant like Microsoft Corp. and the most talented litigators money could buy. Yet the conventional wisdom was turned upside down.
One reason? The credibility of Microsoft’s leadoff expert, Dean Schmalensee of MIT, was badly damaged when his testimony differed from articles he had written and testimony he had given in two other cases for Microsoft. At one point on the witness stand, Schmalensee became so flustered that he mused aloud, “What could I have been thinking?”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
