TAYLOR: You weren’t impressed with Microsoft’s suggestions that your remedy would wreck the American economy? JACKSON:I’m not an economist and I’m not a[n] economic policymaker. I was presented with what appeared to be a remedy which reflected the thoughtful work product of the officials of the Department of Justice and the attorneys general of 19 states, and they had the benefit of a lot of economic advice, and it appeared to me to address the violations that I had found, and to conform to the Supreme Court’s prescriptions as to the appropriate form of a remedy in an antitrust case of this character.

Why wouldn’t conduct remedies–“Do this,” “Don’t do that,” as opposed to a breakup–suffice to stop anticompetitive behavior? I probably would have ultimately preferred a conduct remedy, alone, if that had eventuated from the mediation process. Indeed, if there were a consent decree that both sides had accepted as being adequate to the purpose, I think I probably would have been perfectly content with that. However… Microsoft has continued to conduct business as usual.

You’ve been quoted as saying in The Wall Street Journal, I think, “the jury is still out on this case.” Certainly. There’s at least one or possibly two additional reviews that the evidence that was presented to me will be given by judges who are equally as intelligent as I.

You used the word “untrustworthy” in your order. I derived that primarily from my experience in the earlier case involving the consent decree and the preliminary injunction that I entered. I found their compliance to be less than genuine.

Could that word, untrustworthy, also apply to some of the testimony you heard from Mr. Gates? I wouldn’t want to comment on that.

Considering the gravity of the breakup, why didn’t you take more time to consider Microsoft’s arguments against it? The short answer is that I did not feel that any testimony proffered to me would be particularly constructive. I have generally found even expert predictions as to what the future is going be are not particularly informative.

One of the constant themes of Microsoft is that antitrust law is supposed to protect consumers, not competitors, and the consumers weren’t harmed. I respectfully disagree that there was not harm done to consumers. I am perfectly ready to concede that, in many respects, Microsoft has been of enormous benefit to consumers. That does not, however, excuse the fact that, in other respects, I think they have harmed the interests of the consumers.

Was the Gates deposition an important part of the case? No more than other factors. I didn’t regard his testimony on deposition as particularly informative.

Did it surprise you that he didn’t testify in the trial itself? I think [it made me] curious more than anything else. Surprise[d], no.

Is there still a chance that the case will be settled? The possibility of settlement is always alive.

Are you, a Ronald Reagan appointee, attempting to regulate the technology industry? I have no desire whatsoever to regulate this industry–none–and would gladly be relieved of it if there were any way to do it.

“Trial of the 21st Century” is a phrase you’ve probably heard. Have you a comment on that? [Laughter] I don’t think this trial is gonna define the 21st [century]. It will become more important when the Supreme Court addresses it. I certainly don’t think that anything I have done in this case is going to live in the annals of legal history.

Why are you talking to the press now? I have kept my silence up to this point. [But] because of the extraordinary amount of attention that’s been paid to this case, I now think it’s important for the public to know something about me, and see me as something other than the Wizard of Oz in a black robe, and… to know something about why I have done what I have done.