We had a situation in which, for example, one of their witnesses sponsored a tape that purported to show a Microsoft operating system being used on a computer with the Microsoft browser and then taking the Microsoft browser off, putting on the Netscape browser, and it showed a deterioration of the performance. And the way it was presented was that the video was just running one computer, and that all that changed was the change of the browser.  And as such, that was a very powerful video.  And it was a video that we had enormous difficulty figuring out how to attack, because we couldn’t figure out why that performance was degraded, and we couldn’t replicate that, but on the other hand, we couldn’t figure out how to attack what they had shown. Ultimately, we were able to demonstrate that what they had done was, they had spliced together footage from two different computers with two different programs, and that it really was a fabricated document. Ultimately, Microsoft admitted that what they said was that they had accomplished this result in a laboratory, but then when they tried to film it they couldn’t repeat it, and so what they did was, they made up this tape and introduced it into evidence. Now if they’d said all that at the time, the tape never would have gotten into evidence.  But not saying it was clearly misleading and badly — and this is just one of several examples — badly undercut their credibility. And there’s always a danger here that the drama will overwhelm the facts and that a dramatic instance of that kind of cross-examination will be given too much weight.  But in fact, in a case like this where the real issue is, “Can you trust this company to be doing what it says, that is, serving the consumers, as opposed to locking out competitors?” I think there’s a good argument that a very heavy weight on such kind of dissembling is appropriate.