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?”
