The trial opened in October 1998, and from the opening moments, the government presented a case that embarrassed and damaged Microsoft. Then, when the company offered its own case several months later, many of Microsoft's witnesses were humiliated on the stand.

Testimony ended last spring. And when the judge issued his findings of fact in November, he found that Microsoft had ''demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products.''

With those findings, everyone involved with the case realized that his final judgment -- which would be called a verdict in a criminal case -- was likely to fall heavily against Microsoft, as it did today.

Still, many lawyers were less certain that the judge would find the company in violation of the provision of the Sherman Act that bears on combining one product with another.

A central conclusion in the government's case -- and in the judge's findings of fact -- was that Microsoft tied its Web browser to the Windows operating system to gain market share for its browser and put Netscape at a disadvantage.

But a finding of fact does not necessarily lead to a similar conclusion of law, which says that the action violates antitrust laws. That is particularly so in this case because a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, overturning an order by Judge Jackson requiring Microsoft to offer a version of Windows without the browser, decided 2 to 1 in 1998 that Microsoft had every right to tie the browser to the operating system, if the company could demonstrate a plausible consumer benefit.

The Court of Appeals judges also suggested, however, that their opinion might change once they saw the evidence record from a trial. Judge Jackson devoted the largest section of his ruling to defending his judgment of liability on this count.