TECHNOLOGY : Closing Arguments Presented in Microsoft Antitrust Case : Court: In biting remarks, firm accuses U.S. of ‘spin doctoring’; government says the company ‘has no limits.’

WASHINGTON — Delivering closing arguments in a landmark antitrust case still months away from conclusion, Microsoft Corp. on Tuesday accused the U.S. government of “spin doctoring” and failing to prove Microsoft has broken any laws.

During 2 1/2 hours of sometimes biting and sarcastic closing arguments, Microsoft lead lawyer John Warden praised the government for putting on a case “that had the rapt attention” of court spectators but amounted to little more than “red herrings, misstatements and omissions.”

“The time for melodrama has passed,” Warden said. “Now is the time to look at the hard evidence.”

In their final arguments, lead government lawyers David Boies and Steven Houck repeatedly focused on the vast market share held by Windows and a controversial June 21, 1995, meeting between Microsoft officials and executives of rival Netscape Communications Corp.

“This is a company that is very vigilant in protecting its monopoly power,” Boies said. “It has no limits.”

The government contends that at the meeting between Microsoft and Netscape, Microsoft sought to divide up the lucrative browser market in hopes that Netscape would compete only for sales to non-Windows computer users.

The Justice Department, 19 states and the District of Columbia have sought to portray Microsoft as a corporate bully that has illegally used its near-ubiquitous Windows computer software to dominate other technology markets such as Internet Web browsers.

But Warden seized on the government’s lack of evidence in proving that Microsoft bullied opponents. In a voice so loud and booming that Warden twice took lengthy pauses to clear his hoarse throat, he accused the government of prosecuting Microsoft for tactics that other businesses regularly practice.

“Even monopolists are supposed to compete hard and get all the business they can . . . such competition clearly benefits consumers,” Warden said in the packed, wood-paneled ceremonial courtroom nearly twice the size of the second-floor facility where the trial was previously held.

Boies contended that although no agreement was reached at the Microsoft-Netscape meeting, the episode provided strong evidence of anti-competitive behavior and “an insight into Microsoft’s soul.”

Some experts believe Microsoft’s biggest hurdle will be to convince presiding Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson that its huge 90% share of the personal computer operating system software market doesn’t amount to monopoly power.

On that score, antitrust expert William E. Kovacic, a George Washington University law professor, said he felt both sides scored points during their final arguments.

But he noted that in the nonjury antitrust case, judges are less swayed by bombast than juries are.

And Kovacic said the government may be taking a huge risk by focusing so intently on the June 21 meeting between Microsoft and Netscape executives.

“If the judge concludes anything other that an antitrust violation occurred,” the government could get hurt, Kovacic said. “I think it’s a big gamble.”

Judge Jackson will spend the next few weeks reviewing the final arguments and--under an unusual two-phase verdict process aimed at spurring a settlement in the case--will release his own factual findings sometime next month.

A final verdict on the merits of the case, however, is not expected to come until early next year.