Check frequently for dispatches from Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran and for all the Post coverage.

Video excerpts are available.

Full text of the deposition portions are below. Editor's Note: There may be errors in the text resulting from the scanning process.

Q. Okay. Let me ask you to look at a document previously marked as Government Exhibit 469. The second item on the first page of this exhibit purports to be an e-mail from you dated June 23, 1996 to Paul Maritz and Brad Silverberg with copies to Messrs. Higgins, Bradford, Waldman and Ludwig on the subject of "Apple meeting." (The document referred to was marked by the court reporter as Government Exhibit 260 for identification and is attached hereto.)

Q. BY MR. BOIES: Did you send this e-mail, Mr. Gates, on or about June 23, 1996?
A: I don't remember it specifically, but I don't have any reason to doubt that I did.

Q. In the second paragraph you say, "I have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple relationship 1) Maintain our applications share on the platform and 2) See if we can get them to embrace Internet Explorer in some way." Do you see that?
A: Yeah.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to what your two key goals were in connection with Apple in June of 1996?
A: First of all, June of 1996 is not in the time frame that your previous question related to. And certainly in the e-mail to this group I'm not talking about the patent thing, but believe me, it was our top goal in thinking about Apple for many, many years because of their assertions.

Q. My time frame in my question, sir, was a time frame beginning in 1996 when you began to view Netscape or the Java runtime threat as a competitive threat to Microsoft.
A: And that was after June of 1996.

Q. Is it your testimony that in June of 1996 you did not consider Netscape to be a competitive threat to Microsoft?
A: Netscape was a competitor, but in terms of Java and all the runtime related issues, we didn't have a clear view of that at all.

Q. So that -- I want to be sure I've got your testimony accurately. It is your testimony that in June of 1996 you considered Netscape to be a competitive threat but you did not consider Java or Java runtime to be a competitive threat; is that your testimony?
A: We considered Netscape to be a competitor and I told you earlier that until late 196 we were unclear about our position on various Java runtime things and what other companies were doing and what that meant for us competitively.

Q. Do you agree that in June of 1996 the two key goals that you had in terms of the Apple relationship were, one, maintain your applications share on the platform, and two, see if you could get Apple to embrace Internet Explorer in some way?
A: No.

Q. Do you have any explanation for why you would have written to Mr. Maritz and Mr. Silverberg on June 23, 1996 that those were your two key goals in the Apple relationship? A They weren't involved in the patent issue at all. So when I write to them, I'm focused on the issues that relate to them. I do mention patents in here, but that certainly was the primary goal at this time and in subsequent times.

Q. Let me be clear. When you write to Mr. Maritz and Mr. Silverberg, you talk about patents, do you not, sir?
A: Where do you see that?

Q. Well, did you talk about patents?
A: Do you want me to read the entire mail?

Q. Have you read it enough to know whether you talk, about patents?
A: I saw the word "patent" in one place. If I read the whole thing, I can find out-if it's in other places as well.

Q. You do talk about patent cross license, do you not, in this memo? And if you want to look at the last page, five lines from the bottom.
A: Yeah. They weren't involved in the patent issues at all, so it looks like in this mail I just mention that in a summary part, but it was our top goal in our discussions with Apple.

Q. When you write to Mr. Maritz and Mr.. Silverberg, you don't describe that as your top goal, in fact, you don't-even describe it as one of your two or three key goals; correct, sir?
A: This piece of e-mail doesn't talk about the patent goal as the top goal. It's most likely that's because the people copied on the mail don't have a thing to do with it and I wouldn't distract them with it.

Q. I want to be sure I have your testimony correct. In June of 1996, what was Paul Maritz's title?
A: He was involved in product development activities.

Q. He was involved in product development activities. What was his title?
A: I don't know. Systems.

Q. Systems?
A: Uh-huh.

Q. Did he have a title that went with that?
A: Senior vice-president systems. I don't know.

Q. Senior vice-president systems, I see. Did Mr. Silverberg have a position in June of 1996?
A: He worked for Mr. Maritz.

Q. Did he have a title?
A: I don't know what his title was at the time. He would have been an officer of some kind.

Q. An officer of some kind. So you're writing a memo to Paul Maritz, a senior vice-president, and Brad Silverberg, an officer of some kind, and you're sending copies to four other people on the subject of the Apple meeting, and you say, "I have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple relationship."
A: That's quite distinct than any goals I might have for a deal with Apple. It says, "I have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple relationship," not "I have 2 key goals for a deal with Apple."

Q. well, sir, at the bottom you say what you propose in terms of a deal and you talk about what Apple will get out of the deal and what Microsoft will get out of the deal; correct, sir?
A: Do you want me to read you the e-mail? 1 mean I don't know anything more than just what it says in the e-mail. I'm glad to read it to you.

Q. Well, sir, does it say at the bottom of the e-mail that you are proposing something with Apple and you are identifying what Apple would get under your proposed deal and what Microsoft would get under your proposed deal?
A: Yeah, that's at the bottom of the e-mail.

Q. In fact, the bottom of the e-mail talking about a proposed Apple-Microsoft deal, you say, "The deal would look like this," and then you've got a column "Apple gets" and a column "Microsoft gets" and a column "Both get"; right, sir?
A: I'm reading that.

Q. Now, in this e-mail of a page or a page and a half in which you are proposing this deal, you describe your-two key goals as maintaining Microsoft's applications share on the platform and Apple to embrace Internet Explorer.
A: No, that's wrong.-

Q. That's wrong, okay.
A: The word "deal" and the word "relationship" are not the same word. This says, "I have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple relationship." This down here is an agreement which 1 thought we could reach with Apple.

Q. Is it your testimony here today under oath that your two key goals in investing in the Apple relationship, which you mention in the second paragraph of this e-mail, is different than your two key goals in the proposed deal that you describe five paragraphs later?
A: I don't see anything in here about the key goals -- two key goals in the deal. I've told you that I'm certain that my primary goal in any deal was the patent cross license.

Q. Mr. Gates, my question is whether it is your testimony today here under oath that when you talk about your two key goals in investing in the Apple relationship in the second paragraph of this e-mail, that that is different than what your key goals were in the deal that you proposed five paragraphs later?
A: That's right. Investing in a relationship is different than the deal.

Q. Now, you don't tell Mr. Maritz or Mr. Silverberg that your goals for investing in the Apple relationship are different than your goals in the proposed deal, do you, sir?
A: But the goals and the deal are quite different, so obviously they would have known they were quite different.

Q. Well, sir, you say the goals and the deal are quite different. One of your two key goals that you talk about in your second paragraph is to get Apple-to embrace Internet Explorer in some way. And the very first thing under what Microsoft gets in your proposed deal is, "Apple endorses Microsoft Internet Explorer technology." Do you see that, sir?
A: Uh-huh.

Q. Now, does that refresh your recollection that the deal that you were proposing had some relationship to the two key goals that you were identifying?
A: Some relationship, yes, but they aren't the same thing at all.

End of segment.

Q. Then you said in your June 23, 1 996 e-mail, "I have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple relationship," you were talking about yourself personally; is that correct?
A: Yeah. When I say "investing in the Apple relationship," that means spending time with Apple and growing the relationship.

Q. And when in describing the deal five paragraphs later the very first thing that Microsoft gets is, "Apple endorses Microsoft Internet Explorer technology," did that indicate to you that that was an important-part of what you were getting in terms of the deal?
A: No such deal was ever struck, so I'm not sure what you're saying.

Q. Was that an important part of the deal that you were trying to get, sir?
A: We never got as far as trying to get that deal, unfortunately.

Q. You never got as far as trying to get that deal; is that what you're saying?
A: No. Well, in this time frame Gil Amelio's total focus was on his new OS strategy, so what I outlined here we never got them to consider.

Q. Well, sir, your e-mail begins, "Last Tuesday night I went down to address the top Apple executives;" correct, sir?
A: That's right. Q: And down at the bottom when you're introducing the deal, you say, "I proposed." Now, you're referring to what you proposed to the Apple top executives, are you not, sir?
A: Yes.

Q. Okay. And what you proposed was "the deal" that you then describe at the bottom of the first page and the top of the second page; correct, sir?
A: That's right.

Q. And that was a deal that you proposed the Tuesday night before June 23, 1996 to what you describe as the top Apple executives; correct, sir?
A: I put forward some of those points.

Q. Well, you put them forward and you describe them as proposing a deal, correct, sir?
A: That's how I describe it here, yes.

Q. All right, sir. Now, you'd said that the deal that you were talking about never got done. Did you ever get Apple to endorse Microsoft Internet Explorer technology?
A: You're trying to just read part of that?

Q. I'm actually -- what I'm doing is asking a question right now, sir. I'm asking whether in 1996 or otherwise, at any time did you get Apple to endorse Microsoft Internet Explorer technology?
A: Well, you can get a copy of the agreement we reached with Apple and decide if in reading that you think it meets that criteria or not.

Q. Sir, I'm asking you, as the chief executive officer of Microsoft, I'm asking you whether you believe that you achieved that objective?
A: We did not get some exclusive endorsement. We did get some -- there's some part of the deal that to do with Internet Explorer technology.

Q. Do you know what that part of the deal is?
A: Not really. It has something to do with they will at least ship it along with other browsers.

Q. Does the deal prohibit them from shipping Netscape's browser without also shipping Internet Explorer?
A: I'd have to look at the deal to understand.

Q. It is your testimony sitting here today under oath that you simply don't know one way or the other whether le is today free to ship Netscape's browser without also shipping Internet Explorer? A That's-right.

Q. When you identify things as key goals, do you typically tend to follow up and see to what extent those goals have been achieved?
A: In a very general sense, yes.

End of segment.

Q. Did your goals change? For investing in the relationship?
A: Goals for what? relationship?

Q. You say in this e-mail you have two key goals for investing in the Apple relationship. one of
A: In investing in the Apple relationship.

Q. one of them is to get Apple to embrace Internet Explorer technology in some way. What I'm asking you is whether that changed after this person got fired?
A: We re-evaluated all of our thoughts about working with Apple based on what the new management was going to do, whether they were going to target the machines, what they were going to do with their machines. Since they continued to say we were in violation of their patents, it continued to be our top goal to get some type of patent cross license. Mr. BOIES: would you read the question back, please.

End of segment.

(The record was read as follows:)

Q. You say in this e-mail you have two key goals for investing in the Apple relationship. One of --
A: In investing in the Apple relationship.

Q. One of them is to get Apple to embrace Internet Explorer technology in some way. What I'm asking you is whether that changed after this person got fired?") The WITNESS: You keep, either intentionally or unintentionally, trying to confuse MY goals for investing in the relationship with the goals we had overall for various dealings with Apple. Certainly the goals I had for investing in the relationship, that I had to start over and rethink because the investment was to spend time with the CEO who had been fired.

Q. Mr. Gates, neither in this e-mail nor in any other document that either of us is aware of do you make that distinction that you're making now, correct? MR. HEINER: Objection.

Q. BY MR. BOIES: Do you understand the ion I'm asking?
A:: This document does not say that my goals for dealing -- does not state my goals for dealing with Apple up here. It states my goals in investing in the Apple relationship, so there is a clear distinction right there in that document.

End of segment.

Q. Mr. Gates, this document deals with a proposed deal that you made to top Apple executives; correct?
A: That's only one part of what is in the document. There's a part where it talks about -- you never mentioned it, but the first goal is "Maintain our applications share on the platform." That's something I'm doing in investing in the Apple relationship and that's not related to the deal that's given -- the proposed deal discussed below in the e-mail, so those are clearly two separate things. Related, but separate.

Q. What I think I've done is I think I have mentioned the first goal a number of times.
A: I don't think so.

End of segment.