The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Jim Lehrer is away. On the NewsHour tonight a Newsmaker interview with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; what the Microsoft trial is doing to the company's image; selecting pictures for an exhibition; and a Richard Rodriguez essay about professional wrestling. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.% ? NEWS SUMMARY

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The standoff between Iraq and the United Nations over arms inspections and economic sanctions continued today. We have this report from Krishnan Guru Murphy of Independent Television News.

KRISHNAN GURU MURPHY: More United Nations staff withdrew from Baghdad this morning, joining the weapons inspection personnel from UNSCOM who pulled out yesterday. The inspectors have today destroyed 48 Iraqi SCUD missiles and 40,000 chemical munitions, but still there is fear of what remains. In Israel they're going through what's become a familiar routine ever since the Gulf War. Centers distributing gas masks have opened as a precaution against any retaliatory attacks from Iraq. It's all unnecessary, according to the Iraqi deputy prime minister, who says this crisis has been fabricated.

TARIQ AZIZ: UNSCOM is a subsidiary organ of the CIA and of the Moussad - not a subsidiary organ of the United Nations. We did not cut off our relations with UNSCOM because we want to cut off that relations. We had to take this bitter and difficult decision because after more than seven years and a half, the diplomacy you are speaking about did not bring any result.

KRISHNAN GURU MURPHY: Even the Arab world seems strangely resigned to the idea that military action is inevitable. Eight Arab states, including some opposed to air strikes last February, issued a statement today appealing to Saddam Hussein to comply with UN resolutions, crucially declaring that it'll be Iraq that will be held responsible for any consequences of its decision to stop the weapons inspectors doing their work.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: In an interview with the NewsHour earlier this evening, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the face-off over inspections "cannot go on indefinitely. There will be no further warnings." We'll have that interview right after the News Summary. In Israel today, Prime Minister Netanyahu gave the go-ahead for building a new Jewish housing complex in mainly Arab East Jerusalem. Palestinian officials objected and asked the United States to intervene. US State Department Spokesman James Rubin said the Israeli decision was a bad one that harms the peace process. The Clinton administration signed on to a global warming treaty today. The announcement came at an International Climate Conference in Buenos Aires Argentina. The treaty negotiated last year in Kyoto Japan calls for sharp cuts in greenhouse gases by the US and other industrialized nations. The treaty must still be ratified by the Senate. Republicans and some Democrats have said they oppose the accord because it lacks binding commitments from developing countries. White House officials said they hoped the announcement would encourage other countries to participate. On the Hurricane Mitch story today a United Nations relief agency said it was increasing food aid to Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The World Food Program in Rome said it will send 116,000 tons of rice, corn, and other foods to Central America over the next six months. Officials throughout the region said still more aid will be needed. A team of international scientists announced the discovery of a new species of dinosaur today. The enormous predator was displayed at the National Geographic Society in Washington. It was 36 feet long and 12 feet high, about the size of Tyrannosaurus Rex. The fish-eating creature roamed the riverbanks of present day North Africa 100 million years ago. The bones were excavated last year in the African nation Niger. The discovery is reported in the current issue of the journal "Science." And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Secretary of State, Microsoft on trial, artistic judgments, and a Richard Rodriguez essay.% ? NEWSMAKER

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: We begin with the Iraq situation and some excerpts from Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz's news conference today. He was responding to President Clinton's speech yesterday calling on Iraq to comply with UN weapons inspections.

TARIQ AZIZ: The core of the matter is that there has been compliance with UN resolutions; there has been cooperation with UNSCOM and with the IEA, but the other commitment of the Security Council resolution, which is stated in Resolution 687, has not been fulfilled by the Security Council because of the American position. Who is blocking the way towards sincere cooperation and who is blocking the way towards lifting the sanctions? It's he and his government, not the president of Iraq, not the government of Iraq. He says that this is easy. It's not easy. It has not been easy to the people of Iraq. For seven and a half years we have been working with UNSCOM. The work with UNSCOM is not easy. It's bitter, it's difficult, and even it is disgusting. But we tolerated it. We tolerated it in great patience because we wanted to alleviate the hardships of the Iraqi people. We wanted our people to live normally. Who is preventing the Iraqi people from living normally? It's he and his government, with the support of the British government. So when you speak about compliance, it's the United States which is not complying with the United Nations resolutions. It's the United States by its policy against Iraq which is poisoning the whole situation, so who's capable of finding a way out of this crisis? It's the secretary-general of the United Nations; we know that. Our we interested in any - in his initiatives? Yes. And we have an example of that in February. He came in February, and we dealt with him respectfully, sincerely, and seriously. So if he intends to do anything productive and positive in this regard, yes, in principle, in principle, we welcome that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Margaret Warner spoke with her a short time ago.

MARGARET WARNER: Welcome, Madame Secretary. Thanks for being with us.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: Great to be with you, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: Has the President made a decision yet to attack Iraq and when?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, the President has all the options, and we are watching very carefully, and we have basically said that this cannot go on indefinitely, and as the President said yesterday, the Iraqis do not need any further warnings.

MARGARET WARNER: Is it possible to turn back at this point?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, if Saddam Hussein complies -- the entire international community is saying to him that he has an obligation to comply with the Security Council and to rescind his decision about not cooperating with UNSCOM. And if he does that, then we can continue down the road of trying to have this comprehensive review, which the Security Council offered, and see where that leads us. But he is the onethat has to agree that UNSCOM can come in and do its job.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, as you know, Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister of Iraq, had a press conference today, and he essentially blamed the United States for the standoff. He said they've been trying to cooperate for seven and a half years. There's never any light at the end of the tunnel; there's just another tunnel, and that the Clinton administration, as he put it, just doesn't want to see sanctions lifted, period.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, you know, it's quite typical of the way that they've been operating. They will not accept responsibility themselves for what is going on. They are the ones that have had the opportunity since the end of the Gulf War to comply. You know, this has been one of the clearest sanctions regimes with the clearest road maps that have ever existed in terms of how to get from Point A to Point B, and it's perfectly simple for them to say that UNSCOM needs to come in and do its job. And it is not the US' fault; it's not the UN's fault; it's Saddam Hussein's fault. And what they've been trying Margaret, is specifically, is always blaming everybody else, and now they have to take responsibility themselves. You know, what's very interesting, today the gulf states, along with Syria and Egypt, made very clear that it -- that Saddam Hussein was solely responsible for what was going on. So even his Arab neighbors are beginning to see what we are seeing, is that this is his responsibility.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, he did say today that he put it I think negatively but that no peace solution was possible unless the United States "agreed to the principle of lifting sanctions."

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, you know what this is like? We have - basically, it's been written up as to how the sanctions will end, but what he wants is a guarantee that the sanctions will be lifted before he's gone through a comprehensive review. And it's like somebody going to a doctor and insisting that he get a clean bill of health even while the doctor has been telling him that he's sick and he won't allow the doctor to continue the exam. There is no way to give him a guarantee that sanctions will be lifted if he does not allow UNSCOM - that is, the doctor - to do the job.

MARGARET WARNER: So are there any diplomatic efforts underway now to try to overt this, any active diplomacy?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: You know what's important here, Margaret, is I think everybody is focusing on is there any effort at this time to do diplomacy. I don't think most people realize that we have been doing diplomacy, so to speak for actively, for seven years, and very actively for the last year. It was in February of this year that Kofi Annan, with our support went to Baghdad and agreed to this memorandum of understanding, which Saddam Hussein violated in six months. After his August decision not to cooperate with UNSCOM, we didn't use force; we continued to use diplomacy. Now, in October, when he said that he wouldn't cooperate -- we have been using diplomacy and using it very long and very hard, and what's happened is that this can't go on indefinitely, but this cry all of a sudden to use diplomacy is also false. We have, in fact, been very engaged diplomatically for a year in the most active way.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're essentially saying that the United States has done everything it can diplomatically, and if there's going to be something happen on that track, it really has to come from Iraq?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Absolutely. We've made very clear, but it isn't just us, Margaret, the whole Security Council, which has been unified on this for several months now, has said that he must rescind his decision. You know, the Security Council a year ago October had become divided. But what Saddam Hussein has done as a result of his recalcitrant actions is to reunite the Security Council. It is now very firmly on one position, which is that he has to rescind his decision, and then there will be a comprehensive review.

MARGARET WARNER: So if air strikes are launched, what will be achieved?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, let me just make the following point: There are people - you know, nothing -- UNSCOM is not working now. We are very concerned about what is happening in terms of his weapons of mass destruction. He is a threat to the neighborhood. He has actually, as we know, invaded a country. He is also a threat because he wants to have and has had these weapons of mass destruction. And if UNSCOM could work, we could assure ourselves that he would not be able to develop or deliver those weapons of mass destruction. So the air - you know, if in fact, we do take an action of force, it will be designed in order to degrade his ability to develop and deliver the weapons of mass destruction and prevent him also or make it less possible for him to be a threat in the neighborhood.

MARGARET WARNER: But if it comes to that, can you confirm reports that essentially say the administration at that point will have and essentially has concluded that the inspection regime for all intents and purposes is over?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, the inspection regime has not been working for eight of the last twelve months. And I think one of our concerns is we can't think that something is working when it is not. That is dangerous. And so we would very much like to have the inspection regime work. We have great faith in UNSCOM and find that the statements that Tariq Aziz made about UNSCOM are ridiculous and unconscionable and untrue, that we would like to see UNSCOM back in. But, in effect, you know, we have to be frank here that the regime as a whole has really not been able to work properly for the last many, many months.

MARGARET WARNER: So if air strikes achieve what you wanted to, to degrade his weapons-making capability and his overall military capacity, what is -nonetheless- what is left on the ground -- Saddam Hussein still in power?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I mean, that is not the objective of this, although I have said and so have others many times that we would look forward to working with a post-Saddam regime, and we are going to - have been and will continue actively to work with the opposition groups. But the purpose of force, if we were to use it, would be in order to degrade his ability to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction and be a threat to the neighborhood.

MARGARET WARNER: But, the head of the special commission, Richard Butler, and many other experts in this field, have said really that even after massive air strikes, a country like Iraq, with the know-how to make these biological weapons and chemical weapons, can really reconstitute them pretty quickly.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, we know that, which is why we think it's important to have an inspection and verification and then monitoring regime in there. That has been what we have been trying to do for the last seven years. But if it doesn't work, then we can't fool ourselves into thinking it's working and relying on it. And that's why we are prepared to have them continue their work, have there be a comprehensive review, so that if Saddam feels that there's nolight at the end of the tunnel, you know, if we do a comprehensive review, that's all he could ask.

MARGARET WARNER: Madam Secretary, and I guess I'm talking now about after - if that hasn't all worked and we go to air strikes and you think you've achieved these military goals and the strikes, and it's sort of then what? I mean, then do you go back again when you think he's rebuilt, or do you actually at that point he would welcome inspectors there?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, he might, and in which case we would be prepared to have a structure of inspection and a way of operating that would allow us to do what we had not been able to do before. We still believe, Margaret, that UNSCOM is the best method for dealing with the weapons of mass destruction. And they, in fact, as you know, over the seven years destroyed more weapons of mass destruction than the Gulf War, itself, did. So they are the best mechanism. And what we really want is for Saddam Hussein to allow UNSCOM to do its job. That is the best solution to this problem, which is why we want him to rescind his decision. We are not just desirous of bombing for the sake of bombing, but the purpose here is to make sure that he does not have that weapons of destruction capability, and the thing to remember, Margaret, is at the end of the Gulf War, as part of a cease-fire agreement, he agreed to dismantle all his weapons of mass destruction. That was the deal he made, and like everything else, he violates his deals.

MARGARET WARNER: How many Iraqi civilians do you estimate will be killed in this operation?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I have no answer to that. But I can tell you this, is that we are - have been, as we look at various options particularly concerned about civilian deaths and very concerned that Saddam Hussein will, himself, kill people and put them out and then say that we had something to do with it. But the bottom line here is, is that we are very concerned about civilian, about collateral damage, and we have made that quite clear.

MARGARET WARNER: Are not many of the facilities you might want to hit in either residential neighborhoods or in so-called "dual-use" factories and so on, where it would be pretty hard to avoid hitting civilians?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Margaret, I'm not going to go into any information about our targets. All I can tell you is that this is one of the issues that President Clinton has very high in his agenda; he's very concerned about civilian casualties, as are we all. And we obviously take that into consideration.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think that the Arab support you mentioned can be sustained if there are a lot of civilian casualties and there is a large public outcry?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that everybody is concerned about what is going on and the Arab support, I think, there's no love lost for Saddam Hussein. I think they are very concerned about the people of Iraq, and frankly, as we have been, because this somehow Tariq Aziz got wrong also - it is thanks to the United States that this oil for food program exists. And there has been - you know - we were the ones who set up the way for them to have billions of dollars' worth of food and medicines, and by the way, food and medicines were never embargoed. But this allows him to get hard currency in order to buy food and medicines for his people. So we care a lot more about the Iraqi people than Saddam Hussein does, and he is the one who is ruining their lives, and this, again, is one of these things where Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz just try to pass the blame off to somebody else. The sole responsibility for the condition of the Iraqi people rests with their dictator, Saddam Hussein.

MARGARET WARNER: Madam Secretary, as I'm sure you know, there's a growing chorus of voices - foreign officials, even some current members of Congress saying there really is no way to contain Saddam Hussein and that this sort of cat and mouse game is just going to go on indefinitely unless there's a viable plan for ridding the country of Saddam Hussein. Do you agree with that?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, let me say, we were - when we came into office, we were left with Saddam Hussein in power. That is how the Gulf War ended, and the decision was made at that stage, and I have said and I will repeat that we would look forward to working with a post-Saddam regime, and we are going to be working even more actively with the opposition groups -- Congress has passed a law, the President has signed it; we will be working with them in terms of organizing and assisting them get themselves organized, and we, as I've said, look forward to working with a post-Saddam regime that will not violate the human rights of the Iraqi people or threaten the neighbors.

MARGARET WARNER: But are you saying you'll expect any effort to remove him or any successful effort to really come internally?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that the opposition groups are the ones that are most interested in pursuing that avenue, and we, as I've said, we have been helping them, but we plan to help them more actively.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, Madam Secretary, thanks very much for being with us.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Thank you, Margaret.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Microsoft on trial; artist judgments; and a Richard Rodriguez essay.% ? FOCUS - U.S. VS. MICROSOFT

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, the latest on the US versus Microsoft. We begin with a report by Jim Compton of KCTS-Seattle.

JIM COMPTON: Microsoft, whose profits have soared by a third or more in each of the last three years, is hardly a company in trouble. Nevertheless, there were undercurrents of concern among stockholders attending its annual meeting this week about the antitrust suit brought by the Department of Justice.

WOMAN: I don't know what to think at this point. I'm coming to listen and hear. I think it obviously has hurt the price. I mean, I'm sure it has, and that's my guess anyway.

JIM COMPTON: But you're not selling?

WOMAN: No. I'm not going to sell, uh-uh.

MAN: The growth can't maintain the previous pace, but it's allowed me to get an early retirement, so I'm going to hang onto it for a while longer.

JIM COMPTON: Microsoft did not admit news organization cameras but passed out an edited videotape a few hours after the meeting. The 2,000 owners of Microsoft's stock who crowded the auditorium in Bellevue, Washington, heard Chairman Bill Gates lash out at the Justice Department suit.

BILL GATES: An important principle is at stake in this case. The government is challenging the right of Microsoft to innovate and decide what goes into its products, and so this is an issue not just for Microsoft but for all American technology companies. The more we see of the case, the more clear it is that there's an effort here to advance the interests of a handful of competitors over the interests of the public or the economy. Consumers are choosing Microsoft's products because of their technology. I am proud to be a part of the role Microsoft has played in making American technology a global leader.

JIM COMPTON: While stockholders were told that the litigation posed a serious threat to the company, Gates made clear his intention to throw all the company's energies into the battle with the Justice Department. Seattle Times columnist and author Paul Andrews is a longtime Gates watcher.

PAUL ANDREWS, Seattle Times: Bill plays it right up into the boundary line, and you have to kind of tell him where that boundary line is, and a lot of times the boundary line is not that distinct. Bill's policy has always been to push as far as he and as hard as he can, and he's still pushing. He's going to push until something happens to stop him from doing that.

JIM COMPTON: Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., in the fourth week of Microsoft's antitrust trial, the federal court heard new testimony painting an unflattering picture of Microsoft as corporate bully. Justice Department lawyers presented testimony this week that Gates sought to quash development of software by the microchip manufacturer Intel. The court saw excerpts from videotaped testimony by Gates in which he dodged questions about allegations that Microsoft sought to intimidate Netscape, Intel, and Apple Computer and squelch competition. The mood after the stockholder meeting was buoyant. There had been no possible questions from stockholders, and there was a rush to get Gates' autograph, and some were comforted by what they heard.

JIM COMPTON: Did you go to the meeting with some fears about the Department of Justice situation?

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I did. I did, and I came out reassured. I obviously don't know enough about it, the complexities of the whole situation, learned something, and did come out reassured.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I think one thing we've all learned is don't keep your E-mail, or don't send anything you don't want anybody else to see.

JIM COMPTON: Microsoft's antitrust problems seemingly have had little effect on its prosperity. The company - with more than $14 billion in sales last year - has an after-tax profit margin of 31 percent.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, Phil Ponce has more.

PHIL PONCE: Joining me are three veteran watchers of the computer industry. John McChesney is covering the trial for NPR, National Public Radio. Andrew Shapiro is director of the Washington-based Aspen Institute Internet Policy Project; and Paul Gillin is editor-in-chief of Computerworld, a weekly newspaper.Gentlemen, welcome. John, you've been in the courtroom every day. Give us some quick highlights that the government has put forth recently.

JOHN McCHESNEY, National Public Radio: Well, recently, we've had this gentleman from Intel, which I'll talk about in a minute. Before that, we had Apple Computer and AOL, America OnLine - America OnLine saying that the only reason that it dumped out of Netscape and put the Microsoft Internet Explorer on their service was because it gave them access to Microsoft's monopoly in the desktop, and that's why they did it.

PHIL PONCE: Again, another example of the government alleging of Microsoft using its monopoly status -

JOHN McCHESNEY: Using its muscle.

PHIL PONCE: To put the muscle on Apple and that kind of thing.

JOHN McCHESNEY: And in Apple's case the substitution of Internet Explorer for Netscape was again a threat from Microsoft, an alleged threat from Microsoft to not develop Office for the Macintosh, which Macintosh really needs in order to stay alive, and another allegation that, in fact, Microsoft sabotaged a multimedia application made by Apple called Quick Time. Microsoft, of course, denies all of this, and now we have this gentleman, Steven McGeety, from Intel. You heard Mr. Gates there saythat this is a product of a bunch of disgruntled competitors, but the problem with Intel - I think this is why Microsoft has taken Mr. McGeety very seriously - is Intel really isn't a competitor with Microsoft. It's a partner with Microsoft in the development of the personal computer. And Microsoft writes its Windows operating system for that microprocessor, and Intel designs that microprocessor so it'll work smoothly with Windows.

PHIL PONCE: Here you have a vice president of a partner of Microsoft giving this testimony.

JOHN McCHESNEY: Right. His status is somewhat ambiguous because Intel - he comes on his own. He's not - he's not forwarded to the trial by Intel. So we don't know quite what his status is. There is an Intel spokesman there, though, who keeps saying isn't our guy doing pretty well, so I think they're not totally neutral, as they say they are. The allegation he's making is that Microsoft suppressed a multimedia application, native signal processing is what they call it, that would run music and audio and video on the PC, and that Microsoft - Bill Gates became furious about this, saw it as a competitive product with Microsoft and told Intel that if it continued to market this product, that he would withdraw support for a new chip that Intel was making. That's an allegation. I'm not putting that forward as fact.

PHIL PONCE: And how brutal was it in court today?

JOHN McCHESNEY: It was very nasty because Microsoft went after Mr. McGeety's credentials, said that he was a lone wolf, didn't represent his company, had an ax to grind against Microsoft because his product, this multimedia product, was suppressed, taken off the market, that he was criticized by his boss for screwing up, that he had not made this product for Windows 95; he'd made it for the older version of Windows, so it wouldn't work. And he was moved out of his job by Intel and forward to MIT to a fellowship, and he blamed Bill Gates for that.

PHIL PONCE: Andrew Shapiro, how much is all of this hurting Microsoft's image?

ANDREW SHAPIRO, Aspen Institute: I think it has started to have an impact on Microsoft's image. And the interesting thing is that the Justice Department really understands that this case is about two things: Legal trials are on the one hand about dispute resolution, who wins the case. But Justice understands, and it's understood from the beginning a year ago that this is about something much bigger. It's about educating the public about this new age that we're entering. It's about educating them about the importance of technology and, in fact, the politics of technology, this question of who controls the desktop, of whether Microsoft can have a monopoly and extend that monopoly into so many important areas like what kind of commerce we have online, if they can lock that up. I mean, that's why, frankly, people who are afraid of Microsoft include not just software companies but banks and retailers and travel agents and others.

PHIL PONCE: Paul Gillin, Microsoft being hurt among those constituencies that Andrew Shapiro was just talking about?

PAUL GILLIN, Computerworld: Microsoft's image may be hurt, but I don't think Microsoft's business is suffering as a result. In addition, this company is being accused of a fairly narrow offense in Washington, and that is using its browser technologies, operating system, to suppress a competitor, Netscape. It's a fairly narrow case, and it's one that I think the government has done a questionable job of proving at this point. The trial has taken quite a few other issues into account, but those really don't relate directly to what Microsoft is being accused of.

PHIL PONCE: In addition to the possible impact on vendors, Mr. Gillin, how about the impact on consumers?

PAUL GILLIN: I don't think that the impact on consumers is that great. Microsoft has never been accused of being a nice company. In fact, there is no precedent that consumers buy from a company because they think it's particularly nice. What consumers want and what people like corporate information technology executives want is products that they can rely on, products that are relatively stable and are backed up by stable companies, which they get good support for, and which offer reasonable value for the dollar. Now you can offer whether Microsoft does that - you can argue about that, but the fact in voting with their dollars, Microsoft's various constituents have proven that they think the company gives them a good value for the dollar.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Shapiro, I saw you shaking your head as Mr. Gillin was talking.

ANDREW SHAPIRO: I would disagree with Paul on this one, and here's why. We've seen some developments in the last year that I think are really interesting. First, the industry - it seems to be really changing its mind. We have the growth of new coalitions of folks who say we need to establish benchmarks in the software and high-tech industry for ethics, for fair play, for what's competitive behavior, and what goes over the line, what's too aggressive when it comes to playing hard the way Microsoft does. Additionally, among a core constituency, which are those software developers and engineers, we're seeing a real interest in what's called open source technology, non-proprietary software that competes and really could take on Microsoft's dominance in the operating system market, encourage folks to check out some of that online at www.opensource.org. I mean, it's a really interesting debate about what our software should look like. And that's what's happening as a result of this trial. The last thing I would say is in terms of the average impact on consumers we have grassroots groups and Washington, DC-based groups like the Consumer Federation of America, who are saying there is going to be a long-term effect on the ability of consumers to choose from a robust and widely open marketplace unless something is done about Microsoft's monopoly.

PHIL PONCE: Paul Gillin, less choice for consumers?

PAUL GILLIN: I would differ with Andrew on that. While I agree that the industry is focused on standards for fair play, that's largely the industry talking and there's no indication that consumers have made this a very important criteria in their buying decision. Also, on the issue of Open Source, I would differ that that is a significant threat to Microsoft at this point. I think Open Source, which basically software that is in the public domain and is freely enhanced by programmers all over the world, is a wonderful development for the computer industry because it does create choice; however, if you are Microsoft, you are pointing to Open Source right now and saying, look, there is choice, consumers do have choice; the government's case has no merit.

ANDREW SHAPIRO: But just last week Microsoft came out - there was a document that was leaked that showed that Microsoft sees Open Source as a threat and is trying to do the same thing to Open Source that it's done to Java, which is essentially nip it in the bud -

PHIL PONCE: Java being another competing operating system.

ANDREW SHAPIRO: Right.

PHIL PONCE: The system that runs a computer.

ANDREW SHAPIRO: A software platform, right.

PHIL PONCE: Let's get John into this.

JOHN McCHESNEY: That's an allegation of course that they've done that to Java. Just one thing about this Intel testimony, I think the government has shown here more clearly than in some of the other cases that consumers may have been hurt, that NSP multimedia software was withheld from the market by Intel and it could have been moved along much more quickly and the government in this case I think has made their point, that that has retarded consumer choice, much more clearly than in some of the other cases. I think the government has had a hard time making the case about consumer - consumers being hurt. But in this case I think they've got a point.

PHIL PONCE: Paul Gillin, as one looks at some of the witnesses who have been testifying again, some of the witnesses who have been partners, companies that are partners with Microsoft, this is - what does this trial show about the nature of relationships in that industry - I mean - if these are your friends, what would your enemies do to you?

PAUL GILLIN: Well, no one has ever made much money by competing directly with Microsoft, and it's generally not a good bet to cross Microsoft. So the industry actually has a lot to gain by limiting Microsoft's power, and this goes across all dimensions of the industry, including companies like Intel. Intel is not wholly beholden to Microsoft and would like to see a more robust choice available in operating systems, much as Microsoft is not beholden to Intel. So I don't think anybody who has taken the stand in the last four weeks has done so with complete impunity and freedom from bias of an interest in this case. The computer industry has quite a divided attitude toward Microsoft. On the one hand, they want to see a company that is aggressive and competes - successfully in the market rewarded, and there is no doubt, Microsoft has done that. On the other hand, the whole industry is scared of Microsoft because they fear that Microsoft can move into their backyard and can stomp them flat with almost a moment's notice.

PHIL PONCE: So, Mr. Gillin, are you saying that some people are - some competitors are looking at this as a point of opportunity, as some vulnerability on the part of Microsoft?

PAUL GILLIN: Well, wouldn't you, if you were competing with a company that was many times your size and could stomp you into jelly whenever they wanted, you would naturally turn to any avenue that would prevent that, and the government has offered an appealing avenue here. However, I think this case is far from over. I think that whatever the result is, it's likely to be appealed, and I think it'll be some time before we have a resolution here. Remember that the case against Microsoft was overturned at the appeals court level. So the government is taking a case upstream that has already been ruled in Microsoft's favor by a lower court.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Shapiro, does that mean that Microsoft is really - notwithstanding the allegations - in a position of power at this point, legally speaking?

ANDREW SHAPIRO: I think Microsoft still has - there's a high likelihood that it'll win at the district court, and I agree with Paul that on appeal, I think they're going to - I mean, the DC circuit here in Washington has already tipped its hand a bit. But, again, what's more important than the result in the court of law, I think, is the result in the court of public opinion. How is this really changing the way people perceive technology, software, the computer, Internet industries, and I frankly do see a chance, and I think that when people start to look at this, I mean, you know, we've had the scrutiny of Microsoft in the antitrust department since 1989, and it's only in the last year that this has really come to the floor, when a spotlight has been shone on Microsoft's practices. It's allowed its competitors to come forward, and that's a good thing.

PHIL PONCE: John, in the short time we have left, Microsoft obviously has not put on their case in chief. What is Microsoft expected to argue when it's their turn?

JOHN McCHESNEY: Well, they're going to argue - one thing that they argue consistently throughout this is everybody does it, so it's okay for us to do it, which legally I think is a questionable - a questionable tactic. They're also saying that this is the federal bureau of complaints; that these are competitors who've lined up to use the Justice Department, that it's a setup, that Microsoft has worked - that these competitors have worked closely with the Justice Department in order to set this case up, and that's what it is; it's government interference on the part of their competitors. They refer to Netscape, for example, as a ward of the state.

PHIL PONCE: Gentlemen, that's where we'll have to leave it. I thank you all very much.% ? FOCUS - ARTISTIC JUDGMENTS

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, pictures for an exhibition. Betty Ann Bowser reports.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Another opening, another show. Installation of new artworks in a museum gallery is the culminating moment of months of complex work, work the public rarely gets to see. But over the next year curators from two sides of the country have allowed the NewsHour to follow them as they plan an important upcoming show. It's a chance to see how their judgment shapes what we see when we go to an exhibit. Cathy Kimball is curator of the San Jose Museum of Art in Northern California. It has a typical problem for a young museum, a new beautiful, big building but not much art. Beth Ven works for the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York City. She has the opposite problem - a huge, distinguished collection but only limited space in which to display it. Six years ago the two museums signed an unusual agreement to collaborate on a series of shows for the San Jose facility that have brought hundreds of the Whitney's finest works to California audiences for the first time. Now, Kimball and Venn are working on the fourth and final show in the series, on American landscapes. It began to take shape where most shows do, in the research library. There's a long tradition of American landscape art. 19th century painters were known for their romantic views of America's natural wonders, like the Rocky Mountains or Niagra Falls. Some 20th century artists dreamed about nature in ways that barely look like a landscape at all. Next stop, the slide library.

SPOKESPERSON: We seem to have like so many ways to organize this show. You know, we've got romanticism, we've got -

BETTY ANN BOWSER: With 12,000 works, the Whitney has enough landscapes to make up any kind of show imaginable. There are expressionist works like Thomas Hart Benton's "Distorted Hillside," or Charles Burchfield's "Angry Rainstorm." There's the moody intensity of this Alex Katz painting of trees reflected in the water. Some works try to undermine the beautiful landscape tradition. This Roger Brown work features stuffed animals soaked in tar against a scene of an oil slick. Gradually, the curators began to look for connections.

FIRST CURATOR: This work by Chuck Close which is called "Sunflower" -

CURATOR: Oh, fantastic.

FIRST CURATOR: Which again - you know - it's not unlike - a Georgia O'Keefe -

CURATOR: Right - juxtaposition -

FIRST CURATOR: -- on an element as a way of talking about the elemental forms of the land.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: From the connections themes emerged, then lists, then revisions of those lists. Venn had her set off possible themes, Kimball had hers. They wondered whether to arrange the works chronologically, beginning with the turn of the century, winding up with contemporary pieces.

CURATOR: We need some different groupings, because it seemed like the themes that we kept going to - dictated a chronological approach.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Grant Wood is best known for his paintings of Midwestern farm life. Maybe he could be paired with contemporary artists like Dennis Oppenheim, who creates landscapes by actually plowing up the land itself. The curators also wanted to match "A Romantic Moonlit Mountain" by Rockwell Kent with a neon sculpture by Keith Sonnier that also suggested moonlight. In the end, both curators agreed they had to shape the sprawling diversity of American landscape art into some kind of a story. But they were less certain of its plot.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: What is the story you're going to tell here? You don't really know yet, do you?

BETH VENN, Curator, Whitney Museum: Partly we do, partly we don't. I mean, I don't think we know the specifics, but I think in terms of a general story we want to talk in general about artists' approach to nature in 20th century America.

CATHY KIMBALL, Curator, San Jose Museum: And their response to nature.

BETH VENN: And their response.

CATHY KIMBALL: But at the same time, pieces that people might not think of as a traditional landscape or might not even recognize as a landscape will be included to help change their perception.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: What's the hardest part about this whole process?

BETH VENN: This part right now.

CATHY KIMBALL: It is.

BETH VENN: Choosing - really getting down to choosing the themes and then the works that are going to go in to those themes.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: How to choose? Everyone loves Edward Hopper, and the Whitney has more Hoppers than anyplace in the world. The public also loves the elegant simplicity of Milton Avery, or the stark realism of Andrew Wyatt. The show couldn't do without these three, but it also couldn't be dominated by them either.

BETH VENN: It isn't just about greatest hits. You know, if you just go to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, what are you really learning? You know, what are you really learning about then?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But what is it that gets most members of the general public in the front door of the Louvre?

BETH VENN: Absolutely. I agree.

CATHY KIMBALL: And that's okay.

BETH VENN: And that's okay. And the same thing is true at the Whitney. I mean, what gets people in the doors of the Whitney -- Edward Hopper.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And there were visual problems. Art looks one way in reproduction but a black and white print of this Joan Mitchell painting can't begin to convey the size and power of the real thing. And there were some practical problems.

BETH VENN: I don't know if you're familiar with this piece by Mary Lucier -

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The show had to work for other team members as well, like the education curator, Margy Maynard, who wanted to use it as a learning experience for the school groups who would inevitably visit. The art also had to fit the so-called "real estate," the gallery space. San Jose has high ceilings that make it easier to show big pieces, but it also has columns and an inside staircase, not very appealing space for handling great artworks. The curators had to carefully coordinate their work with the exhibition designers - Kit Henrichs and David Asari of Pentagram Design in San Francisco. They'll have to come up with an actual design for the show that will dictate where and how the art is displayed.

KIT HINRICHS, Pentagram Design: This wall is still a load-bearing wall. It has to be where it is. We can't muck with that.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: They'll also do the posters, the signs, and the brochures.

KIT HINRICHS: I'm not in a position to choose the artwork in it, but I try and make the experience special, and so I have those skills to be able to make the pacing of that exhibit interesting along the way, to help understand the paintings in some way. I actually can do something else that actually makes the viewing of the exhibition, itself, hopefully heightened and more entertaining and more interesting.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Two months later, Kimball and Venn took the freight elevator up in an old New York City warehouse. The list of artworks had been refined once again. There had been other changes too. Venn was expecting a baby. Kimball was about to look at some of the art for the first time. This is something the public never sees - literally thousands of masterpieces lying around casually amid packing cases under bare work lights.

BETH VENN: It doesn't look anything - it looks so different really from the slides.

CATHY KIMBALL: Well, you have no idea, because it's inlaid -

BETH VENN: Right. All of the little pills and leaves and -

CATHY KIMBALL: It's incredible.

BETH VENN: You know, it is a kind of piece that reads well from far away but then people are also really inclined to come up close, but I definitely think we should use this -

CATHY KIMBALL: Oh, yeah, fantastic, absolutely.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: It was time to make serious decisions. Earlier choices fell by the wayside under the sheer force of the reality of the artworks. For Kimball, there are moments when she couldn't help seeming like a kid turned loose in a candy store.

CATHY KIMBALL: This is just spectacular. I just can't believe how big it is.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Both Venn and Kimball loved this expressionistic piece by Oscar Blumner.

BETH VENN: Wow, this is a lot, it's colorful!

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But where to put it.

BETH VENN: We have it the Fantastical section but I think if we do start to merge those central sections a little, while it does have these kind of swirling forms, it also has some cubist ideas like here.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: So they tried pairing it with another expressionistic piece by Thomas Hart Benton. It didn't work. So they tried a piece by William Zorak.

BETH VENN: Part of it is, quite frankly, the coloration of the pictures, and you have these kind of acidy yellow and green colors in the one, and then you have very natural nature colors, you know. The Benton is so much more true to natural colors.

CATHY KIMBALL: On the other hand, the Benton and the Hopper have the same kind of coloration and certain sensibility about them, but they're not about the same thing, and the artist isn't handling the landscape in the same way. So although they might look nice together, they really aren't going to necessarily be in the same section because they're very different in the handling of the landscape.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Then there was the Joan Mitchell painting that a few months ago looked like a few gray blobs in a small photo. Kimball was not prepared for its sheer size.

CATHY KIMBALL: It's gorgeous, but you are talking about, you know, eliminating a lot of other - a lot of room --

BETH VENN: -- of other pieces. But the other thing, Cathy, is, you know, we don't have a lot of sort of really typical or classic abstract --

CATHY KIMBALL: Right.

BETH VENN: --expressionist paintings, and you know what, they were big -

CATHY KIMBALL: Yes.

BETH VENN: And there's nothing - I think we need to show that. I don't think we should edit it down -

CATHY KIMBALL: No, I agree.

BETH VENN: -- to only the smaller pieces because -

BETTY ANN BOWSER: They postponed a decision on the Mitchell. Because of its size, keeping it in would mean ruling other important pieces out. By now, the show had the beginnings of a story line. It would open with traditional romantic landscapes. There would be a middle section where the artist used a more liberal interpretation of the landscape. Finally, it would confront viewers with some difficult and unpleasant works by artists who take a skeptical look at man's impact on nature.

CATHY KIMBALL: There's a lot of factors involved with those kinds of decision-making when you make up a checklist, but then it's got to get simple, and for me, it's really just this enduring tradition of landscape, that landscape has endured throughout the century. It's that easy.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Easy for now, but would audiences be prepared to go where the curators wanted to lead them? That was the most crucial question of all, and it won't be known until the show opens next June. If the curators do their job well, they'll fade into the background, and the art lovers, who come as these do to the Whitney's permanent collection in New York City, will see only the power and the beauty of the art, itself.% ? ESSAY - SPECTATOR SPORT

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Finally tonight, essayist Richard Rodriguez of the Pacific News Service considers an all-American sport.

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ: For many of us who were boys in the 50's, professional wrestling first appeared in black and white on Saturday afternoons. There, on the family television, was a veritable circus of giants and midgets and muscle men straight out of comic books. Whenever someone got slammed to the ground, he popped back up. Not only is pro-wrestling still around, today, it's bigger than ever. Professional wrestling is the biggest draw on cable television - its audience now primarily men, not boys, men between 18 and 49. Wrestling, like running, is one of the most ancient of contests. But real wrestling is either like college wrestling, too quickly settled, or too slow to attract a mass audience. Modern pro wrestling, the entertainment that grew up with television, may be our truest spectator sport. Everything that happens in the ring is tailored to the audience's needs and desires. For that reason, it's not only our most modern sporting event, it could be the most futurist entertainment now on TV. When I was a kid, I used to go to wrestling matches on Monday nights in a smoky auditorium, where the crowds were small. In my hometown, in Sacramento, mostly poor people went to the wrestling matches - poor whites and Mexican farm workers. For people who knew the meanness of life, pro wrestling offered a medieval morality tale - villains who were very evil, indeed, sometimes lost to the virtuous wrestler, more often, the villain triumphed because he cheated and got away with it. Today's morality is more ambiguous as pro wrestling has become middle class entertainment. Often, the favored wrestlers are the bad guys. Much of the spectacle today is bombast. The successful wrestler is the one who can rouse the crowd with a microphone. Much of the spectacle involves size. Steroids have made wrestlers very, very big. Attempting the cartoon effect, some wrestlers have seriously injured themselves landing on concrete. It is not what goes on inside the ring that captivates; it is the faces, these faces, that are the point of professional wrestling. The successful promoter figures out what has brought the crowd to the circus. A few years ago, when some promoters tried real blood, real mayhem, no-holds-barred matches in steel cages, many Americans were horrified. Mayors banned the matches from their towns. The crowds stayed away. The mass audience, it seemed, wanted something else - not reality - a show. In the 1960s Cassius Clay, who was as great a show man as he was a boxer, announced to America how pretty he was. He reminded me at the time of Gorgeous George. It was the first time, I think, I sensed that the fake world of pro wrestling was in tune with something in America - a taste for hyperbole and theatrics. On cable these days, besides pro wrestling, you can watch 24-hour political tag teams - two pros versus two cons - sound bite versus sound bite. Ideas have been reduced to the level of Monday night nitro. Fireworks, steroids, rock music - are we watching sports or theater or happening? It's impossible to say anymore. Impossible to know in a country where lines are blurring between thought and bombast, the real and the cartoon. The crowd roars. Look! There's Dennis Rodman, professional basketball player, sometimes cross-dresser, entering the pro-wrestling ring. There's Mike Tyson. And there's Jay Leno, whose monologues are used by politicians to gage the public mood. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to America, welcome to pro wrestling. I'm Richard Rodriguez.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Believe it or not, Richard wrote that essay before another famous wrestler, Jesse "The Body" Ventura, was elected governor of Minnesota on the Reform Party ticket.% ? RECAP

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Again, the major story of this Thursday, a top Iraqi official said he saw no light at the end of the tunnel in the dispute with the United Nations over weapons inspections and sanctions. Secretary of State Albright said on the NewsHour tonight there is no way sanctions will be lifted before the UN inspectors finish their job. She said the US is very concerned about potential civilians casualties that might result from military action. We'll be with you online and again here tomorrow evening with Shields & Gigot, among others. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you and good night.