Netscape Communications Corp. Chief Executive James L. Barksdale is one of the government's key witnesses in its antitrust proceeding against Microsoft Corp. Business Week Correspondent Steve Hamm spoke by phone on Nov. 3 with Barksdale to get an assessment of how the CEO felt his testimony went. It was the first interview Barksdale has granted since he appeared on the witness stand. Here are excerpts from their conversation. (The complete interview is also available here in RealAudio format.)

Q: What was it like to be up on the witness stand for four-and-a-half days, being grilled by John Warden?
A: It's the first time I've ever done anything like that. It took longer than I expected. I've gotten a lot of E-mail since I got back, saying they thought I did a good job and presented the case well. One problem was that my direct testimony was in writing, so a lot of people didn't get to see it. I hope they see it, because I think it built a very strong case.

Q: If there was one point that you wanted to get across -- and you feel as if you did -- what was that?
A: That I was telling the truth. I feel like we got that point across.

Q: How do you feel about seeing those internal Microsoft documents that make it seem like they were targeting Netscape and going to great lengths to defeat your company?
A: I think some of them are shocking. But they prove what we've been saying. It corroborates almost every point that we gave in our direct testimony. It makes me particularly proud of our team because they have overcome a lot of obstacles.

Q: What's your reaction to Microsoft's contention that Netscape set up that June 21, 1995, meeting -- intending to gather evidence to give to the Justice Dept.?
A: That's absurd. There was no setup or conspiracy. The first week they were saying this was a fantasy of ours, and the next week they were saying it's a conspiracy, and now they're saying it's what everybody does. I think they ought to stick to their story.

Q: But you had been in touch with [antitrust lawyer and Microsoft critic] Gary Reback before that meeting, correct?
A: We were under a request by the Dept. of Justice that was investigating issues relating to Microsoft and AOL [America Online], and the MSN [Microsoft Network] issue they had been looking into for some time. The Justice Dept. asked us for some information.

Q: Microsoft claims this case is being conducted by the Justice Dept. on behalf of Netscape. They've even called you a "ward of the state." What do you say to that?
A: That's just not true. This case is about the future of the Internet. It's about consumer choice. We're not the center of the case, no matter how much they'd like to try to make us the center of the case. We continue to build great products. Where we can compete on merit, we do very well.

Q: How important is this case to Netscape?
A: I can't deny that some customers and prospects think it's the key to our future. But it's not. We're certainly supportive of the Dept. of Justice and the 20 states that have brought this action. But we're building a great company, and we're very excited about the future of the company.

Q: Have you noticed any loosening up in the market? Are corporate customers more welcoming of Netscape, and is there a sense that they want to have alternatives to Microsoft and look to you to provide them?
A: One of Netscape's main attractions to customers from Day One is that we provide alternatives. And that's cherished by many customers -- certainly not all. We provide many options in many product areas that they seem to want to adopt, and that's working well for us.

Q: What's Netscape's business plan today, and why will it work any better than the one that has had difficulties over the past year or so?
A: I think we're proving ourselves as we go along. The past several months our strategy has been evolutionary -- making maximum advantage of our client browser, as well as our enterprise software for people who want to build Web sites. And our Netcenter portal business is doing extremely well. It's the fastest-growing portal since we reinvigorated it this past summer. And we also provide a lot of services with our consulting group that allow people to take maximum advantage of the Net economy. Those all seem to resonate with customers and are providing a good strong base going forward.

Q: According to International Data Corp., your browser market share continued to slip in the first half of the year, in spite of the fact that you now give the browser away, like Microsoft does. How do you explain that?
A: I want my testimony to stand on that point. But I would point out that Zona Research Inc. showed we have increased market share among business users, educational users, and goverment users over the past several months -- and that's more recent than the IDC report. In those markets, people have more of a choice because they're not forced to adopt the product that comes with their operating system.

Q: Given the evidence that has come out at the trial, what remedy do you think is appropriate?
A: I think what the court has to do is consider the effect on competitors and consumers and the future of the Internet. And I think they should separate Microsoft's application group from its operating system group. I don't believe in government regulation of the software industry. But I think the touchstone is to give consumers a full, fair choice without the power of a monopoly operating sytem pushing them in a direction that free competition might or might not achieve.