At last, the first installment of Microsoft CEO Bill Gates's videotape has been played in court. And the deposition is emerging as the cornerstone of the government's attempt to put Microsoft's leader on trial. But it's not clear that this will be a winning legal strategy for the Justice Dept. -- or just atmospherics aimed at dirtying Gates's reputation.

The government's goal is bold. It means to show that Gates himself -- not unruly underlings -- guided a strategy of illegally taking advantage of the company's Windows operating-system monopoly to undermine and defeat challenges from Netscape Communications Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. By showing Gates's video, rather than putting him on the stand, Justice makes its point about his behavior without giving him the opportunity to answer back. A senior Justice official says Gates's credibility -- or lack thereof -- will help the government make its case and could cast a pall on other Microsoft witnesses. "It's important for the judge to understand who's telling the truth," he says.

As drama, the two-hour video segment played on Nov. 2 is anything but scintillating (key portions of it are available here). Some of the pauses between question and answer last 20 seconds or more. Still, some legal observers believe that making Gates a key focus -- and tearing down his credibility -- is important to the government's case, even though it's no substitute for damning evidence of wrongdoing. "The government's strategy is to suggest that the company is ruthless, untrustworthy, and dishonest. By showing the videos, they suggest that those characteristics come right from the top," says William E. Kovacic, a professor of antitrust law at George Washington University.

POOR IMPRESSION. But focusing so much attention on Bill Gates could backfire. Several legal experts say even with the trial well into its third week, the government has not yet proved that Microsoft has used its monopoly power illegally. "The fact that the government is making emotional rather than substantial arguments plays into Microsoft's hands," says Daniel Wall, an attorney with McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen in San Francisco. "The more the government tries to demonize Gates, the more you wonder where the goods are."

In the video, Gates makes a poor impression. He slouches in his chair and rarely makes eye contact with his interrogator. He appears evasive when answering questions -- frequently responding "I don't know" when asked if he remembered sending or receiving E-mails that are evidence in the government's case. And on several occasions, Gates denies knowing about things that, according to documentary evidence, he once understood very well. Example: Gates says he had "no sense of what Netscape was doing" in June, 1995 -- just one month after he penned a lengthy memo analyzing his competitor's strategy.

In a second segment, Justice's chief lawyer David Boies refers to an E-mail Gates received from a Microsoft executive who seems to suggest that Microsoft might be able to get Apple Computer Inc. to favor Microsoft's browser over Netscape's by threatening to withhold new versions of its Office desktop productivity suite for the Macintosh -- a software package that's vital for Apple's future.

Gates denies understanding the E-mail, but the government makes its point about Microsoft's machinations and raises questions about Gates's credibility at the same time. Gates's intent is vital, says Richard Gray, an antitrust attorney with the San Jose (Calif.) firm of Bergeson, Eliopoulos, Grady & Gray: "Ultimately, for the government to win, its case has to be about a conscious plan by Microsoft to destroy the competition. And Gates shows that take-no-prisoners attitude."

'EMOTIONS AND PLOT.' At the most strategic level, the government needs to convince Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson -- and the jury of public opinion -- that one of the most admired business leaders in the world is guiding an outlaw enterprise. "They're trying to make it into a story with characters and emotions and plot twists," says Paul Roeder, an antitrust attorney with the San Diego firm of Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich.

Portraying Gates in a negative light may make it more palatable for Jackson, who has signaled repeatedly that he favors the government's arguments, not only to rule against the widely admired man and company but also to order stiff sanctions. Ernest Gellhorn, a professor of antitrust law at George Mason University, says Boies is trying to erase any doubts the public may have about the efficacy of antitrust law. "The government here is trying to make a case that this is an egregious violation, and appropriate for intervention. That melds law and politics," he says.

For its part, Microsoft says putting Gates on trial is off-target -- and the government simply isn't proving its case. "The company denies it threatened to cancel Office for Macintosh. In fact, it agrues that it was Apple that held a threat -- a $1.2 billion patent claim -- over Microsoft's head. Microsoft Vice-President for Legal Affairs William H. Neukom calls the playing of the tape "an unfair personal attack on Bill Gates" and dismisses it as a "scheme" to get around Jackson's 12-witness limit.

Still, the company's attorneys asked Jackson to block the airing of the tapes -- so, they clearly see them as potentially damaging. As the trial continues, the pressure is on the government to prove conclusively with its videos that Gates was not just evasive and combative but that he broke the law, too.

By Steve Hamm in San Mateo, Calif. and Mike France in New York