I don't think they want to be perceived as doing a lay-down in some kind of face-saving settlement, especially where that won't end the case, with the states going forward.

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.

I think of moving as a kind of saving grace.

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.

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