In an effort to wrap up its phase of the Microsoft antitrust case with a bang not a whimper, the Justice Dept. decided to hold back its last two witnesses until after the two-week holiday recess. So in the last two days before the break (which begins on Dec. 17), prosecutors decided to go to the videotape. And which witness is always a crowd pleaser? Microsoft CEO Bill Gates, of course. So, here are the highlights from Gates and a few other tidbits, too.

BEWARE OF "HIT TEAMS": A key issue is whether Microsoft used its dominance in operating systems to bend personal-computer makers to its will. Because Justice hasn't been able to persuade any computer makers to testify, it has been introducing documents and depositions to make this point. During a portion of Gates's August deposition, trial attorney David Boies asked Gates about a March, 1994, E-mail to Gates in which Microsoft executive Joachim Kempin mentioned that IBM Corp. was helping to sell Lotus Notes instead of a competing Microsoft product. Said Kempin: "I am willing to do whatever it takes to kick them out, but strongly believe we need a WW [worldwide] hit team to attack IBM as a large account, whereby the [computer maker] relationship should be used to apply some pressure." IBM's relationship with Microsoft was that it depended on the software maker for the Windows operating system. A short while after this, IBM purchased Lotus.

Gates said in his deposition that he did not know what Kempin was talking about but said "WW hit teams" were salespersons who dealt in large accounts. He denied that such hit teams were supposed to "apply some pressure" when they dealt with large accounts.

He also told Boies that he didn't believe, from reading the document, that Kempin was proposing to apply pressure on IBM. But several days earlier, Boies noted, Gates sent Kempin an E-mail in which he said: "This is one topic I really want to try to get to the bottom of. Why does IBM help Lotus so much? Is there anything we can do about this? Should it become an issue in our global relationship with IBM?" When Boies then asked whether Kempin had been responding to this E-mail, Gates replied: "I don't remember receiving his E-mail."

THE 1,000-POUND GORILLA: Did Microsoft use its power to discourage Web-content companies from promoting a rival Internet browser made by Netscape Communications Corp.? Walt Disney Co. thinks it did. In an excerpt from a Sept. 1 deposition, Steve Wadsworth, a vice-president of Disney subsidiary Buena Vista Internet Group, said that in exchange for placing a Disney Web "icon" on the Windows operating system's first screen, Microsoft imposed restrictions on Disney's ability to promote Netscape's browser on its Web pages. For instance, when Disney tried to place an icon with its logo on Netscape's NetCaster site, Wadsworth said Microsoft insisted that such a placement would violate the contract and threatened to pull Disney's icon from the Windows desktop. In an E-mail written after meeting with Microsoft executive Bill Spencer, Wadsworth said: "I pointed out to Bill that I didn't like being strong-armed, and that this approach to the relationship is only going to screw it up."

Wadsworth then testified that Microsoft held "all the cards because they have this broad distribution capability through the Windows operating system.... and substantial market share." Being on the Windows desktop was extremely valuable to Disney because of the exposure, he said. In the end, he said, Disney agreed not to promote Netscape's NetCaster channel bar and to remove its logo from the site. In the E-mail, he concluded: "We are being roughed up by the 1,000-pound gorilla of the industry."

THE "UNPRODUCTIVITY" TOOL: Justice has argued that Microsoft illegally tied its Internet Explorer browser to its Windows operating system in order to stifle competition in the browser market. Microsoft contends that its Windows 98 is a single operating system product with browsing functions and that if the Internet Explorer code were removed, the operating system would be unworkable. In a segment of a deposition taped last July, Ron Rasmussen, an executive of Santa Cruz Operation, which supplies operating systems, asserted that the browsing technology could be removed without harming the system. In fact, he said some users don't want a browser in their operating system because of the disk space it uses. Some, he said, refer to the Web browser as a tool for "unproductivity" since "people surf the Web rather than doing their work."

SCORE ONE FOR ORRIN HATCH... In other videotaped testimony, Gates acknowledged that the government's scrutiny had an impact on a business decision. Fearing bad publicity and a hearing before Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Gates said he turned down a proposal to require Internet service providers to steer business to Microsoft's Web page. "I think the PR group thought it would be controversial, and we didn't see any benefit as being worth the controversy," Gates said.

...AND ONE FOR THE COMPUTER: In his usual deposition style, Gates seemed to blame his computer for part of an E-mail he sent to Microsoft executives on August 15, 1997, regarding IBM and Netscape.

Boies: And you type in here "Importance:High."
Gates: No.
Boies: No?
Gates: No, I didn't type that.
Boies: Who typed in "High"?
Gates: A computer.
Boies: A computer. Why did the computer type in "High"?
Gates: It's an attribute of the E-mail.
Boies: And who set the attribute of the E-mail?
Gates: Usually the sender sets the attribute.
Boies: Who is the sender here, Mr. Gates?
Gates: In this case, it appears I'm the sender.
Boies: Yes. And so you're the one who set the high designation of importance, right, sir?
Gates: It appears I did.

On Dec. 16, the government plans to show excerpts from the depositions of executives from Packard Bell and Network Computer Inc. Some Gates excerpts may also be shown.

By Susan Garland in Washington