A judge's legal ruling can be a complex interaction between facts and laws. However if a judge bases his ruling on erroneous technological theories, speculation, and forecasts, the final decision will be a wasteland of legal mumbo-jumbo, incomprehensible to both lawyers and critics. This is what happened when judge Thomas Penfield Jackson decided the Microsoft antitrust case, ordering the division of the software giant into two separate companies. This major new study of the Microsoft antitrust trial quotes extensively from Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact, then offers analysis and evidence that questions the accuracy, consistency and relevance of those findings. The author argues that many key facts are clearly erroneous or contradictory. Other facts involve dubious technological theories, speculations, opinions and forecasts. Since the Findings of Fact form the basis of all charges of illegal behavior, the author finds the case " literally baseless." The book also provides detailed reporting of key meetings and memos from Microsoft, Netscape, and many more top players involved in the trial of the computer software and hardware industries. Reynolds brings the reader deep into the world of legal questions surrounding computers and software, and gives deep insights into this increasingly important industry.