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.

A: No, I don't recall that.

Q:. The top e-mail, which is from Don Bradford to a number of people dated August 21, 1997 and is also on the subjecl; of "conversations with BillG last night," says that Mr. Bradford and someone else, Mohan Thomas, "will take the lead on working out the Apple bundle deal." Do you see that?
A: Yes.

Q:. Did you instruct your executive staff in or about August of 1997 to work out an "Apple bundle deal
A: Well, I think this is post the August agreement, late July or.early August agreement we reached with Apple. And I think there were some circumstances under which they would include or bundle IE with some of their shipments. I think that's what that's referring to.

Q:. And is that what your present recollection is -that you told-your executive staff in August of 1997?
A: Well, I don't recall specifically what 1 said to the executive staff about Apple, but it appears Ludwig took out of that that he was supposed to make sure that whatever outs that Apple had under the previous agreement for not shipping our technology, that we avoided those being a problem that prevented them from shipping our technology.

Q:. Well, Apple wasn't prohibited-from shipping your technology in August of 1997, was it, sir?
A: No, I actually think if we -- I don't know the Apple agreement, I haven't read it, but I think there is something in there that if we got certain things done and if there were no problems and it passed tests and we were ready in time, that they would actually affirmatively include some of our technology in various OS releases. And this appears to be a discussion about whether or not we're going to be able to meet the requirements on us related to that.

Q:. It is clear that getting the browser in the October OS release from Apple was something that, you, Bill Gates, and Microsoft wanted; correct, sir?
A: Yes, that's something that we wanted.

Q:. The last sentence of the second paragraph says, "Bill was clear that his whole goal here is to keep Apple and Sun split. He doesn't care that much about being aligned with Apple, he just wants them split from other potential allies." And that relates to Java, does it not, sir?
A: I don't have a direct recollection, but if you read the sentence in front of it, that paragraph seems to relate to Java runtime.

Q:. Do you have a recollection of telling your executive staff in or about August 21 that your whole goal with respect to Apple related to Java runtime was to keep Apple and Sun split?
A: No.

Q:. Who was at this executive staff meeting?
A: Probably members of the executive staff.

Q:. And who were they?
A: It's about 40 to 50 people. I doubt you want to take the time for me to guess. We generally get about 70 percent attendance. Looking at this document, I think it's very likely that I was there and John Ludwig was there, but as to the rest of the executive staff, I'd just be guessing. It's very rare for us to have non-executive staff members at those meetings, although sometimes it happens.

Q:. Is Mr. Ludwig somebody who you believe is an honest and competent person?
A: In general, yes.

Q:. Do you have any reason to believe that he would make up anything about what your statements were?
A: No.

End of segment.

Q: Let me ask you to look at a document that has been previously marked as Government 58 This is an e-mail to you from Ben Slivka dated April 14, 1997. And the subject is, quote, "Java review with you," close quote. (The document referred to was marked as Government Exhibit 58 for identification and is attached hereto.)

Q: BY MR. BOIES: Did you receive this e-mail in or about April of 1997, Mr. Gates?
A: I don't remember.

Q: The e-mail begins that the author is working with Paul Maritz to set up a two -- to three-hour review for you on your Java efforts. Do you see that?
A: On our Java efforts.

Q: On Microsoft's Java efforts?
A: No. I think it's Ben Slivka's group.

Q: And he is a Microsoft group; right?
A: Yes. He's part of Microsoft but not all of Microsoft.

Q: So you would interpret this that he is working with Paul Maritz to set up a two- to three-hour review for you of part of Microsoft's Java efforts but not all of Microsoft's Java efforts; is that what you're saying?
A: Yeah. The work his group is doing.

Q: The work his group is doing on Java; right?
A: Right.

Q: Okay. And he lists what he describes as some pretty pointed questions that you, Mr. Gates, had about Java Do you see that?
A: Well, I'm not sure those are the pointed questions. It says, "I want to make sure I understand your issues/concerns."

Q: Well, that's actually the last part of a sentence that begins, quote: "When I met with you last, you had a lot of pretty pointed Questions about Java, so I want to make sure I understand your issues/concerns." That's what the sentence says; correct, sir?
A: Right.

Q: And when Mr. Slivka says "I met with you last," he's talking about you, Mr. Gates; correct sir?
A: Yes.

Q: And when he says, "You had a lot of pretty pointed questions about Java," he's again talking about you, Mr. Gates; correct?
A: Right.

Q: And then he lists what he refers to as a start: 1. What is our business model for Java? 2. How do we wrest control of Java away from Sun?" Do you see that?
A: Uh-huh.

Q: Sometime prior to April 14, 1997, had you conveyed to Mr. Slivka that one of your pointed questions about Java was, quote, "How do we wrest control of Java away from Sun?"
A: I don't think I would have put it that way. Certainly was an issue about the popularity of Sun's runtime APIs versus our runtime APIs.

Q: Is it your testimony that you didn't raise the question of "How do we wrest ccntrol of Java away from Sun?" with Mr. Slivka?
A: I'll say again, I doubt I used words like that. But there certainly was an issue of the popularity of our runtime APIs versus runtime APIs.

End of segment.

Q: BY MR. BOIES: I take it you know Mr. Slivka?
A: Uh-huh.

Q: You've got to answer "yes" or "no" audibly so the reporter can take it down.
A: Yes.

Q: And you believe him to be a person of competence and integrity?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you have any reason to believe that he would have misstated what you told him when you met with him last before April 14, 1997?

MR. HEINER: Objection.

THE WITNESS: In no way does this purport to be a restatement of things I said to Ben Slivk
A:

Q: BY MR. BOIES: Well, Mr. Gates, what this memorandum says is, quote, "When I met with you last, you had a lot of pretty pointed questions about Java, so I want to make sure I understand your issues and concerns." "Here's a start, can you please add any that I'm missing?" And then he lists six, the second of which is, "How do we wrest control of Java away from sun?" You see that in the exhibit, do you not, sir?
A: Uh-huh, yes.

End of segment.

Q: Did you have personally any discussions with Apple with regard to trying to agree with Apple as to the extent to which Apple and Microsoft would compete with respect to Apple's QuickTime software?
A: No.

Q: Do you know if anyone from Microsoft had such discussions with anyone at Apple?
A: I know over a course of years we've talked to them about what their plans are for QuickTime, but that's all.

Q: Does Microsoft have software that competes with QuickTime?
A: Since QuickTime's a free runtime, you could answer that either "yes" or "no." It's not a revenue source for Apple. But there is an Apple technology that has some common things with some Microsoft technologies.

Q: Do you believe that QuickTime software competes with any software distributed by Microsoft?

MR. HEINER: Objection.

THE WITNESS: Depends on what you mean "compete."

Q: BY MR. BOIES: Using that in the way that you would ordinarily understand it in the operation of your business, sir.
A: No.

Q: Did you make any effort or did Microsoft make any effort-to get Apple to agree not to market QuickTime in any respect or to limit the marketing of QuickTime in any respect?
A: There were discussions about whether we could help them with their QuickTime goals at various points in time. And, in fact, they encouraged us to do something where we'd actually by working with them make QuickTime even more popular than it 18. MR. BOIES: Would you read back my question, please? (Question read.)

Q: BY MR. BOIES: Can you answer that question, sir?

MR. HEINER: Objection.

THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of anything that was directly aimed at those things, no.

Q: BY MR. BOIES: Are you aware of anything that was indirectly aimed at those things?
A: No.

Q: Did, to your knowledge, any representative of Microsoft try to convince Apple not to sell or promote QuickTime for uses for which is Microsoft promotes the use of NetShow?
A: There was some discussion about the future development of the runtime code and whether we could work together on the Windows side of that . runtime code that would enhance their goal and-our goals.

Q: And was there a discussion in that context about Apple agreeing not to sell or promote QuickTime for uses that Microsoft was promoting NetShow to fulfill?
A: Not that I'm aware of.

Q: Insofar as you're aware, did Microsoft representatives tell Apple representatives that if Apple would agree not to sell or promote QuickTime for uses for which Microsoft offered NetShow, that Microsoft would help Apple in other areas?
A: Well, the Quick -- as far as I know, the QuickTime runtime is free. So when you say "sell," I don't -- I'm not sure what you mean there.

Q: I think I said sell or promote, I certainly meant to. But I will use the word "distribute," if that will help.

A: I think there was a technical discussion about whether a common runtime was achievable which would have enhanced their QuickTime goals.

Q: When you say "a common runtime," would you explain what you mean by that?

A: I mean that-the Windows media player runtime would combine technology from them and from us that met all of their goals for QuickTime.

Q: And so there would be a Windows media player that would be distributed, and Apple would stop distributing QuickTime for purposes for which the Windows media player was distributed; is that what you're saying? A No. They wouldn't have to stop anything. There would just be a new runtime that might incorporate some of their technology and help them with their QuickTime goals.

Q: Well, when you say there would be a new program that would incorporate or might incorporate some of their technology, would that result in them stopping the distribution of their existing QuickTime technology? A There's no reason it would need to.

Q: Was that part of the discussions? A I don't think so. But as I told you, I wasn't part of any of those discussions.

Q: Were you aware of those discussions while they were going on? A I knew that Apple had a -- had the QuickTime runtime for Windows. And there was always a

Q:uestion of whether we-could create a Windows runtime that combined what their goals were there and what they had done well there for the work we were doing. And I know we talked to Apple about whether we could help each other in an effort like that.

Q: When you talk about helping each other, would that result in a single product that would then be distributed in place of both QuickTime and- 1 NetShow? A No. People could still distribute their old things. But if you create a new thing that's better, some people might use it.

Q: Well, was the purpose of creating the new Windows media player that you referred to to obsolete QuickTime? A Whatever functionality QuickTime had previously would be unaffected by any such effort.--

Q: That really wasn't my

Q:uestion, Mr. Gates. Maybe I can state it more clearly. Did Microsoft try to convince Apple to take actions which would have resulted in Apple no longer distributing QuickTime to people to whom Microsoft was distributing NetShow or a successor Microsoft product? A I'm not aware of anything that would have stopped them from distributing the QuickTime they had. But it was possible we could come up-with something that would be helpful to both companies in terms of a product that took some of their technology and ours and was better for users. ~

Q: Did Microsoft offer to have Apple continue to offer a multimedia player for the Mac platform and to assist Apple in that if Apple would agree not to distribute that multimedia player for the Windows platform?

A: As I said, I don't think there was any- discussions about not distributing some old thing, but rather a question that was could something new be created which would be better for both companies.

Q: Was the idea that once this new thing was created, the old thing that Apple was distributing would no longer be distributed by App1e?

A: As I said, I don't think that was part of the discussion.

Q: Have you ever been told anything, or have you ever read anything about any contentions that Apple may or may not make concerning these discussions?

A: No.

End of segment.

Q: Are you aware of any assertions by Apple representatives that Microsoft representatives tried to get them to agree to divide the market?

A: No.

Q: No one's ever told you that; is that your testimony?

A: That's right.

Q: And you've never heard that from any source?

A: That's right.

Q: Do I take it from what you said yesterday that if, in fact, Microsoft representatives had attempted to get Apple representatives to participate in a market division, that would be contrary to Microsoft policy?

MR. HEINER: Objection.

THE WITNESS: That's right.

Q: BY MR. BOIES: And I take it that if you found out that people had done that contrary to Microsoft's policy., they would be appropriately dealt with?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you a regular reader of the Wall street Journal?

A: Some days I read the Wall Street Journal.

Q: Are you aware of a Wall Street Journal article that discusses assertions by Apple concerning alleged efforts by Microsoft to get Apple to agree to divide markets?

A: No.

End of segment. let me just refer you to a Wall Street Journal article of July 23, 1998, entitled "U.S. Probing Microsoft's Multimedia Role." Does that refresh your recollection as to whether you ever saw a -- a Wall Street Journal article about alleged market division attempts between Microsoft and Apple?

MR. HEINER: Do you want to show us the article?

MR. BOIES: I have no objection to showing it. And I have no objection to marking it.

MR. HEINER: I don't care if it's marked or not.

MR. BOIES: My purpose is just to try to refresh his recollection, to see whether he recalls having ever seen this.

THE WITNESS: No.