I think the judge will discuss the future schedule in the courtroom because the process is closely connected to the substance of the government's proposal. Under the guise of process, you could see a debate about substance of government's proposals.

The delay is a positive sign, because I think they will need that much time to achieve a consensus.

I think the publicly traded companies will be very careful making acquisitions in the future and concentrate on operations versus being the largest. Currently, asking prices are too high relative to what publicly-traded companies are willing to pay.

A company with a static supply chain strategy will not be successful in the future.

This is the HOV lane of litigation compared to IBM. The appeals process could go on for two years. Then there would be a question whether a remedy imposed today would make sense in the middle of 2002. The rate of technological change puts a lot of pressure on the joints of traditional antitrust litigation.

Compared with the previous occasion when Judge Jackson heard oral argument on the facts in September 1999, he played more of an active role in the courtroom today. He asked a lot of questions, which revealed that he is still thinking quite a bit about the part of the opinion that deals with tying.