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

Q: In 1996 was there a common understanding of what was meant by "Internet software"?
A: In a context-free sense, absolutely not.

Q: Was there a common understanding of what was meant by an Internet browser?
A: The whole notion of what the browser -- what features it would contain or what it would mean or all that was very uncertain in 1996.

End of segment

Q: Good morning, Mr. Gates.
  Are you going to be a witness at the trial of this matter?
 MR. HEINER: Objection.
 THE WITNESS: I don't know.

End of segment

Q: BY MR. BOIES: Do you intend to be a witness at trial?
A: I don't know.

End of segment

Q: Good morning, Mr. Gates. Do you understand that you are still under oath?
A: Yes.

End of segment

Q: Let me ask you to look next at a document marked Trial Exhibit 520. The second e-mail or message here is a message dated April 12, 1995 at 12:54 p.m. from Paul Maritz to you and a number of other people; correct, sir?
A: That's what it appears to be..

Q: BY MR. BOIES: And the subject is the "3 year plan thoughts - draft;" correct?
A: That's, yes, the subject.

Q: Did you receive this message on or about April 12, 1995?
A: I don't remember receiving it, but I have no reason to doubt that I did.

Q: Now, attached here is something that is titled 1 year plan follow-up (draft)." Do you see that?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you receive this at or about the time indicated of April 12, 1995?
A: I'm not sure.

Q: Let me ask you to look at the page that bears in the bottom right-hand corner the Microsoft document production stamp ending 7193. And in particular the portion that is under the heading "Shell/Browser." Do you have that?
A: Yes.

Q: And it says here, "We should get a view as to what will be handled by the 'Win97' Shell, and what will not - and if not, how is the needed extension integrated into the Win97 environment."
  Do you see that?
A: Uh-huh.

Q: Were you told in or about April of 1995 that one of the issues in terms of planning that was needed to be decided was what would be handled by the Win97 shell and what would not be?
A: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure what is meant by Win97 shell here. I don't remember seeing that at the time.

Q: Well, you know what a shell is in this context, do you not, sir?
A: Yes.

Q: And you recognize Win97 as a reference to what ultimately became Windows 98, do you not, sir?
A: No. The fact that we use a name like that before we have decided what's in a product doesn't mean that when we used that name back then it references what eventually got into the product.

Q: Let me make sure I understand that last answer.
 Was Win97 a reference that was used within Microsoft to refer to what ultimately became Windows 98?
A: It was a term that was used to refer to a project. When it was used, none of us knew either what would be in the project or what it would be called. So any time you see that reference, you can't assume it's a reference to the things that eventually became Windows 98. All you know is they're referring to the next project related to enhancing Windows.

Q: Let me ask the question this way. Was the project that was internally described within Microsoft as Win97 the project that ultimately resulted in Windows 98?
A: I believe so.

End of segment

Q: All right, sir. Let me ask you to look at a document that has been marked as Trial Exhibit 333. And this purports to be some questions and answers on "The Use and misuse of Technology" by Bill Gates dated October 24, 1995, copyrighted 1992 to 1995 by the Microsoft Corporation.

Q: BY MR. BOIES: Do you recall preparing these questions and answers, sir?
A: I know I was at a meeting where this was worked on.

Q: And did the statements set forth here reflect your views at the time?
A: I don't remember specifically these sentences, but I have no reason to doubt this is what was discussed and put into the column.

Q: And you understood that when this was prepared and, as you put it, put into the column, that it was going to be published, did you not, sir?
A: Yeah, the column is published.

Q: Where is the column published?
A: A number of newspapers.

Q: Now, when you refer here on the second page, fourth line, to "winning for Microsoft a larger share of the market for Internet browsers," do you see that?
A: No.

Q: It's on the second page, fourth line --
A: Oh, you're on the second page. Let me just read this.
 Okay, go ahead.

Q: When you refer in here to "winning for Microsoft a larger share of the market for Internet browsers," do you see where you say that?
A: Yes, it's part of a sentence here.

Q: What did you mean by "the market for Internet browsers," sir?
A: I assume I meant usage share of browsers on the World-Wide Web.

Q: You then go on in parens to say "An Internet browser is software that lets an individual roam the worlds of information available on the Internet. Microsoft's browser is called the Internet Explorer."
  Do you see that?
A: Close paren. Yeah.

Q: Close paren and then close quote, since I'm quoting it.
 Did you believe that was an accurate statement at the time that you made it and published it?
A: In trying to give an explanation to the broad audience that the column was aimed at, yes, I thought it was a good way of describing it to that audience.

End of segment

Q: Okay. Let me ask you to look at Trial Exhibit 560. This is a message from you to Mr. Ballmer and Mr. Chase with a copy to Mr. Maritz and some other people also given copies dated August 15, 1997 at 4:07 p.m. on the subject of IBM and Netscape; correct?
A: Uh-huh

Q: BY MR. BOIES: And you type in here Importance: High."
A: No.

Q: No?
A: No, I didn't type that.

Q: Who typed in "High"?
A: A computer.

Q: A computer. Why did the computer type in "High"?
A: It's an attribute of the e-mail.

Q: And who set the attribute of the e-mail?
A: Usually the sender sends that attribute.

Q: Who is the sender here, Mt. Gates?
A: In this case it appears I'm the sender.

Q: Yes. And so you're the one who set the high designation of importance, right, sir?
A:It appears I did that. I don't remember doing that specifically.

Q: Right. Now, did you send this message on or about August 15, 1997?
A:I don't remember doing so.

Q:Now, you say that you had a meeting with Jeff Papows; is that correct?
A: I did have a meeting with Jeff Papows, yes.

Q: And the third paragraph from the bottom you write "He doesn't want anything attributed to me or he will get in trouble, but he says we can just refer to all the rumors on the Web about what kind of deal is being done between Netscape and IBM."
  Do you see that?
A: I do.

Q: At this point, that is, in or about August of 1997, were you aware prior to your conversation with Mr. Papows, that there was a prospect of a deal between Netscape and IBM?
A: There had been rumors of that, so yes. In fact, there had been deals. There was rumors of a new deal.

End of segment

Q: BY MR. BOIES: This is a message dated February 16, 1998, from Laura Jennings to you and a number of other people, including Mr. Allchin, Mr. Ballmer and Mr. Maritz.
 Do you see that?
A: Yes.

Q: BY MR. BOIES: Did you receive this e-mail in or about February of 1998, sir?
A: I don't remember receiving it, but I have no reason to think that I didn't.

Q: Let me take you down to the next to last paragraph on the first page. The first sentence says "One potential concern: Brad mentioned to me late Friday that there may be new concerns about our plan to make Start a requirement for being in the IE referral server, or at least there may be timing issues related to your appearance at Senator Hatch's hearings."
 Do you see that?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you recall a discussion of this in or about February of 1998?
A: Not with Laura. But on the general subject, yes.

Q: Did Microsoft in fact make Start "a requirement for being in the IE referral server"?
A: No, I don't think we did.

Q: Why not?
A: I think the PR group thought it would be controversial and we didn't see the benefit as being worth having that controversy.

Q: Let me ask you to look at a document that has been marked as Trial Exhibit 225. The first message here is a message to you and Mr. Ballmer with copies to other people dated March 23, 1994 at 9: a.m. on the subject of "IBM helps Lotus."

Q: BY MR. BOIES: Did you receive this message in or about March of 1994, sir?
A: I don't know

Q: The message begins by describing how IBM is helping in the selling of Notes. Do you see that?
A: Yes.

Q: And at the end Mr. Kempin, who is the author of this, says "I am unsure if we need to see this as an organizational issue or an OEM issue."
  Do you know what he means by that?
A: What's he talking about?

Q: Do you know what he is talking about?
A: No.

Q: He then says "I am willing to do whatever it takes to kick them out, but strongly believe we need a WW hit team to attack IBM as a large account, whereby the OEM relationship should be used to apply some pressure."
 Do you see that?
A: Uh-huh.

Q: You have to say yes for the record.
A: I see it.

Q: Do you know what Mr. Kempin means when he writes to you about a "WW hit team"?
A: He means a salesperson.

Q: If he means a salesperson, why doesn't he say salesperson, sir?
A: It clearly means salesperson.

Q: Are salespeople within Microsoft commonly referred to as WW hit teams?
A: If they're world-wide and if they're trying to sell to somebody who is a large account, you bet.

Q: And when your salespeople go out to sell large accounts, are they commonly referred to as needing a "WW hit team to attack IBM as a large account, whereby the OEM relationship should be used to apply some pressure"?
A: No.

Q: Did you say no?
A: I said no.

Q: Do you remember Mr. Kempin telling you in March of 1994 that he was proposing that the OEM relationship with IBM should be used to apply some pressure to stop IBM from promoting the sale of Notes?
A: No.

Q: Do you recall anyone ever telling you that, sir?
A: No.

Q: Did you ever respond to Mr. Kempin and tell him that no, you didn't think that Microsoft ought to apply OEM pressure to IBM?
A: I don't understand your question.

Q: Do you understand that Mr. Kempin is here proposing to you that Microsoft apply OEM pressure to IBM?
A: It doesn't say OEM pressure.

Q: I didn't say it said it, sir. It says he is proposing that the OEM relationship should be used to apply some pressure on IBM; correct, sir?
A: You're asking me to read it?

Q: I'm asking you if that's what you understand him to be saying.
A: What?

Q: That he is proposing that the OEM relationship should be used by Microsoft to apply some pressure on IBM.
A: No, I don't think he is proposing anything.

Q: You don't think he is proposing anything. When he says that he strongly believes that there needs to be a "WW hit team to attack IBM as a large account, whereby the OEM relationship should be used to apply some pressure," you don't think that he is suggesting that Microsoft apply pressure on IBM?
A: I don't think he is making a proposal. It is one of the things he mentions, but it's not a proposal.

Q: Now, Mr. Kempin's message was a response to a message from you to Mr. Kempin and Mr. Ballmer dated March 20, 1994 at 11:29 p.m., correct?
A: It appears to be, yes.

Q: And you write him in the first paragraph "This is one topic I really want to try to get to the bottom of. Why does IBM help Lotus so much? Is there anything we can do about this? Should it become an issue in our global relationship with IBM?"
 

Did you send this message to Mr. Kempin and Mr. Ballmer in March, 1994?
A: It appears I did. I mean that's part of the message I sent, it appears.

Q: Now, when Mr. Kempin replied saying "We need a WW hit team to attack IBM as a large account, whereby the OEM relationship should be used to apply some pressure," did you understand him to be responding to your questions?
A: I don't remember receiving his mail.