This is the week that Microsoft was supposed to get nailed for antitrust violations. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson promised that with his threat to rule against Microsoft by Tuesday — a Tuesday now come and gone. The prospect of that Tuesday warning got a lot of people excited. The BBC called, asking me to be ready for action in the middle of the night. The New York Times called, wanting me to be ready to write something pithy if needed. Only it wasn't needed, and I was allowed to sleep the whole night because nothing happened. Exactly why nothing happened says a lot about Microsoft, says even more about Judge Jackson, and gives me more reason than ever to believe it will be a long, long time before this case is actually settled.

Now I'm not a legal scholar, but I sometimes play one on television, and to me, it seems Judge Jackson's behavior in this case is unusual. He's the judge, of course, and he can run the case any way he pleases. But the fact is he has strung the case out quite a bit, first with his decision to separate the finding of fact from the final judgment, and now with his decision to separate the finding of law from the remedy. Where he might have just read the briefs, heard the arguments and witnesses, then ruled on the case, Judge Jackson has instead taken a very deliberate course of allowing Microsoft to be humiliated in court, then saying publicly that Microsoft is guilty of antitrust violations, then pushing the warring parties into settlement negotiations that have gone nowhere. And now, when he might have just shut the thing down with a firm ruling and a gavel bang, he's delaying again, then citing which specific laws have been broken, then launching into an arduous penalty phase, all the time urging both sides to settle.

Only the judge doesn't really mean it when he wants both sides to settle. He wants Microsoft to settle. It seems clear to the judge — or at least it seems clear to me that it seems clear to the judge — that Microsoft is guilty as sin. He wants Bill Gates to accept this fact and do the right thing. Settling, to Judge Jackson, doesn't mean the Department of Justice should soften its stand. He wants the judicial system to function as it should.

Poor deluded Judge Jackson. He just doesn't get it.

Judge Jackson doesn't understand Microsoft any better than I can read the thoughts of my pet dog. His actions show that. The judge is a rational man attempting to apply rational ideas to this trial, which of course explains why he doesn't get it. Rationality isn't a part of the Microsoft way.

As the trial went forward and the situation for Microsoft looked worse and worse, Judge Jackson became increasingly testy, frustrated both by Microsoft's obvious bad behavior and by the company's refusal to make a real attempt at a settlement. "What was wrong with that Bill Gates?" the judge must have wondered. "Why doesn't he settle?" So over and over again, Judge Jackson has done what he can to give Microsoft an opportunity to settle, driven first by the humiliating trial, then by the damning finding of facts, then by a direct order to negotiate, and finally, by the threat of Tuesday's judgment. Jackson is still waiting for Microsoft to see the light, a light the company will never see. That's the part that Judge Jackson doesn't get.

Humiliation is a tool at Microsoft, not a weapon. Certainly, the company doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks about it, or it wouldn't have behaved the way it has for these many years. Looking bad in his deposition wasn't something Bill Gates wanted to do, but what the heck. It doesn't really matter. To Microsoft, the finding of fact wasn't pleasant, but it wasn't a disaster, either. By that time, the company already expected to lose, and was concentrating solely on its appeal. Microsoft has a very thick skin.

What matters to Judge Jackson is reputation and the rule of law. The rule of law means less to Microsoft, or it wouldn't be in this pickle in the first place. And bullies almost by definition have to accept the reputation their behavior grants them. So Judge Jackson is over and over trying to apply his own value system to Microsoft, and is continually frustrated by his lack of success.

What matters to Microsoft is power and money, which is just a measure of power. Power is everything to Microsoft, whether it is in an executive meeting, a product planning session, or Federal Court. And in the mind of Microsoft, Judge Jackson has been throwing his power away. Microsoft generally feels the case is going pretty darned well.

Huh?

This is an instance of Microsoft perhaps not understanding the judge. You see, at Microsoft, judgment is swift and merciless. If Judge Jackson could survive at Microsoft, which I doubt, he would know this. And if he was like Microsoft, he would have already ruled against he company and be well into the act of tearing Redmond asunder. To Microsoft, the fact that Jackson hasn't yet tried to break up the company is a sign of weakness and indecision. To Microsoft, this looks like an opportunity. And the more Judge Jackson delays, the weaker he looks to Microsoft. They actually think the game is turning in their favor. And who are we to say they are wrong?

Microsoft sees the judge as a wimp for his lack of action. And wimpiness implies a power vacuum that could be filled by Microsoft. At least, that's what they think. The fact is neither party understands the other, with the result that all this monkey motion has been for naught. But Microsoft knows that as long as there are delays, it doesn't have to change its evil ways. The longer the delays, the less likely there is to be a dismembering of the company. The longer the delay, the stronger Microsoft feels, and the stronger it probably is. We can already see a softening of stance on the part of several attorneys general in the case, and the Department of Justice is getting meeker in its own demands.

This is Judge Jackson's fault for not using his power in a way that is recognized as power by Microsoft. And the result? I think Microsoft has already won.

Now I must turn to the current look and feel of this column, a subject that has generated hundreds of e-mails, nearly all negative. Forget the toad, the toad is gone. The new look is here to stay, with the exception of changing the column text from white-on-blue back to black-on-white. I couldn't read it, either.

This redesign wasn't my idea, but I support it. The fact is that readers never like change. They HATE it. And perhaps that very hate also drives them to read even more loyally the design they hate. In newspapers, magazines, and web sites, redesigns always lead to increased readership, which is probably why we do it. Yes, the old design was nice, but it was old. In another year or two, this new design will be discarded, too, and you'll hate that. But we're reworking the features that had ground to a halt from bad programming (mine) like the notification and forums. Please give these a try again or at least give them a chance. And as the guy responsible for the words, I hope you'll get enough out of those to make bearable even the loss of the frog.