He'll probably hand down a series of injunctions to stop the specific things he finds to be illegal.

If someone finds caviar that it is too cheap, then it is probably illegal.

This is so nice, it must be illegal.

If Microsoft wants to paint a picture of judge that is biased, this gives them a little more ammunition.

The judge would open up the remedy phase to listen to more evidence.

I don't think it's a wildly adventurous case, but it shows they're looking at types of competitive restraints they didn't before. I'd sort of look at the government's ability to prove that there is a harm to competition in the sense of either effects on prices, or on the offering of new services in the markets they're concerned about. This isn't a slam-dunk where you prove something and you win. This case involved the economy, and it's much more complex.