dictionary

CNN NewsStand transcript: Discussion of ruling to break up Microsoft

June 8, 2000
Web posted at: 12:09 PM EDT (1609 GMT)

	LEGAL RESOURCES
Latest Legal News
Law Library
FindLaw Consumer Center Select a topic Bankruptcy Discrimination Divorce Estate Planning Landlord-Tenant Personal Injury Taxes

This has been revised for Law Center to view the transcript in its entirety see NewsStand transcripts.

CNN NewsStand Federal Judge Orders Breakup of Microsoft; `The Greaseman' Searching for Redemption Aired June 7, 2000 - 10:00 p.m. ET THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ANNOUNCER: It's Wednesday, June 7, 2000.

Tonight on CNN NEWSSTAND: breaking up Microsoft.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANET RENO, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I'm pleased that court ordered a strong effective remedy to address the serious antitrust violations that Microsoft has committed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Reaction from all sides, and where the battle goes now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL GATES, CHAIRMAN, MICROSOFT: Microsoft feels we have a very strong case on appeal. This kind of regulation would really hurt high-tech economy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: A look at what it means, for the computers in your home now and in the future.

Also, we'll compare Bill Gates' empire with the rail and oil barons of old.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rockefeller felt very strongly that competition was a very wasteful and inefficient process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: See what history teaches us about corporate breakups.

Plus, your chance to tell us what you think of the Microsoft ruling. Get ready to call-in or e-mail your questions and comments to CNN's Greta Van Susteren.

He called himself "The Greaseman." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DOUG TRACHT, RADIO DJ: Get a closeup of my lips, my (UNINTELLIGIBLE) lips.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: A million-dollar shock jock, until he went too far.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is The Greaseman a racist?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. I don't see how anyone can say that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLARA BYRD TAYLOR, JAMES BYRD JR.'S SISTER: Sometimes we say things, and then once they're out of our mouth, we wish we never said them. But still the consequences, we have to suffer those.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight, The Greaseman's quest for redemption, and why others say he should never be allowed on the air again.

CNN NEWSSTAND, with anchors Judd Rose in New York and Judy Woodruff in Washington.

PERRI PELTZ, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to NEWSSTAND. Judd and Judy are off. I'm Perri Peltz in New York.

We are starting with the battle for your computer's mind and your wallet. A federal judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson, today ordered the breakup of Microsoft for violating antitrust laws. If the ruling stands, it could rank with the fall of the oil, railroad and telephone monopolies in the last century. Our first impressions on the ruling come from CNN Sr. Washington correspondent Charles Bierbauer's "Reporter's Notebook."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHARLES BIERBAUER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Judge Jackson at one point contemplated perhaps he should break Microsoft into three parts. But in end, he went along with Department of Justice's recommendation that there should be two versions of Microsoft, one the operating systems that we best know as Windows, and two the other application, everything else that Microsoft does in software department. He also decided that they should change their behavior, and this is perhaps as important as anything else, to its competitors, that they should not create some of the deals that they had before, the tying arrangements, whereby things such as the Internet Explorer, the browser, were linked into the Windows operating system. From now on, when Windows incorporates something like that, Microsoft would have to put out two versions, one with, one without, and give its competitors and its consumers the opportunity to take their pick.

JOEL KLEIN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Customers, consumers in a free and competitive marketplace will decide for themselves what software they want to purchase. Neither a monopolist nor the government will dictate that choice.

BIERBAUER: Judge Jackson said he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that breaking up Microsoft was a imperative, and he did so saying a structural remedy is imperative Microsoft as it is present organized and led, I guess that's a message to Bill Gates, is unwilling to accept the notion that it broke the law.

RENO: Today's ruling will have a profound impact not only by promoting competition in software industry, but also by reaffirming the importance of antitrust law enforcement in 21st century and the importance of competition.

BIERBAUER: So this was a very harsh message to Microsoft, one that even prompted Bill Gates to say, gee, maybe I should have shown up here in person to explain this business a little bit more to Judge Jackson.

GATES: There must have been some failure to have the judge understand the whole PC phenomena, that we've gone from a computer industry that was very high-price, low-volume oriented to one in which the pace of innovation is incredible, and that no company has a guaranteed position. If he had understood all of those things that have come out of this business, I don't think he would have reached what is an unprecedented scheme to regulate the business and break the company in two.

BIERBAUER: Microsoft hasn't indicated exactly how it wants to proceed with appeals, but certainly indicated it will.

GATES: And what it can do is ask Judge Jackson to authorize going directly to Supreme Court.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PELTZ: Rather than go into all the details of the judge's ruling, you can just go to our Web site and read it for yourself. It's part of the comprehensive coverage you'll find at CNNfn.com. The principals in the Microsoft case, as well as computer industry experts, have been talking ever since the ruling came down this afternoon. But we want to hear what you think. Our Greta Van Susteren will join us later this hour. If you'd like to call in or e- mail a question about the breakup, the address is greta.newsstand@cnn.com, or you can phone us, the number: 404-221- 1855.

Well, first there was Rockefeller, now Gates. Ever since the trustbusting days of Teddy Roosevelt, Washington has gone to court to keep dozens of America's barons of business in check.

CNN's Garrick Utley looks at how corporate fates and fortunes have waxed and waned in the government's pursuit of antitrust breakups.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GARRICK UTLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At the dawn of the last century, like the new one, technology was remaking American life: steel, oil, railroads, the telephone -- one-hundred years before the Internet, these new industrial networks linked the new continental economy. The public loved the new products and speed of communication, but was uneasy about so much power in so few hands -- monopolies.

The era was dominated by men such as Vanderbilt in railroads, Carnegie in steel, and the oil titan John D. Rockefeller, who created Standard Oil.

RON CHERNOW, ROCKEFELLER BIOGRAPHER: Rockefeller felt very strongly that competition was a very wasteful and inefficient process. Rockefeller was a figure of infinite cunning and stealth. He was really a strategist and tactical genius, and he managed single- handedly, in an unregulated environment, to figure out every single anti-competitive device imaginable.

UTLEY: Rockefeller bullied, bribed, dissembled -- like his competitors, only more ruthlessly. You either joined John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil or you were run over. Oil was the fuel of the new economy. At the peak of his monopolistic power, Rockefeller controlled 90 percent of the oil industry in the United States, but a popular reaction was under way.

WILLIAM KOVACIC, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: So In 1890, Congress adopted the Sherman Act, which basically sought to forbid two things. One is the exercise of monopoly power by single huge enterprises; and the second to forbid individual entrepreneurs from pulling together in cartels, or what were called trusts, to exercise monopoly power.

UTLEY: It was President Theodore Roosevelt who used the Sherman Act as his legal club to go after the monopolies. After a five-year struggle, the Supreme Court in 1911 split up Standard Oil into 34 companies.

(on camera): The breakup of Standard Oil, into what became Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Chevron and other companies set limits on the way business is done in the United States. Corporations that abuse their power can be restrained, prevented from merging, or, as in the case of Standard Oil, completely dismantled.

(voice-over): The year that Standard Oil was broken up, the government did the same thing to the American Tobacco Company. But when the government took on Eastman Kodak and U.S. steel in the 1920s, and 50 years later IBM, the courts sided with the companies.

KOVACIC: There was always a gamble associated with the restructuring, because indeed you never do know exactly how things will play out. You always at some point have to take a leap of faith.

UTLEY: Another major battle over power and control involved old Hollywood movies, such as "Citizen Kane".

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "CITIZEN KANE")

ORSON WELLES, ACTOR: I'm Charles Walter Kane! I'm no cheap, crooked politician!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UTLEY: The government attacked the studios power to both produce the films and control how and where they would be seen in the theater chains the studios owned.

In the late 1940s and early '50s, the studios forced to choose: keep their movie theaters, or their movie-making business, but not both. Most chose to continue making movies.

How successful has the federal government been in prosecuting what it claims are monopolies?

(on camera): Since it was given the legal tools a little more than a century ago, the government has launched 160 cases. But only 34 of them have actually led to the breakup of a company.

(voice-over): One of the most dramatic, that affected every American home, involved this company: AT&T. In the early 1900s, there were 6,000 telephone companies competing in the United States. There were different systems, different equipment -- often people couldn't talk to each other. So the federal government made a deal with AT&T: It would have a legal monopoly, in exchange for guaranteeing phone service at regulated rates to all Americans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My it looks just fine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your phones are ready Mrs. Gardner. Right now, you could call anywhere in the world if you want to.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UTLEY: The Bell system provided good service, and became part of the fabric of life. The first transcontinental phone line was completed in 1915; the first Transatlantic phone service in 1927 -- a three minute call cost $75 then, and there was the first communication satellite, Telstar I in 1962.

Despite these and other advances, the government argued that there would be even faster progress and lower rates for consumers if AT&T was forced to compete against other phone companies.

In 1982, the courts ruled that AT&T would be broken up.

KOVACIC: AT&T said we have the best telephone service on the face of the Earth -- reliable, good service, you can pound our telephone and abuse them and they will never break. Why on Earth would you want to mess around with that remarkable industrial accomplishment. AT&T predicted that if the breakup took place, that the integrity and efficiency of the American telecommunications system, including its national security system, would collapse.

UTLEY (on camera): What AT&T predicted, as it now acknowledges, didn't happen. MCI, Sprint, as well as AT&T have all grown. The cost to consumers has dropped dramatically. New technologies and innovations have been introduced with breathtaking speed. An example of what this can lead to can be seen not only here at AT&T's network operations center, but also here, a few miles away in Hackensack, New Jersey, home of the Net2phone company.

(voice-over): Net2phone allows consumers to make long-distance calls over the Internet. The cost? As low as one cent a minute.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You came home from school today and you weren't feeling well?

UTLEY: The AT&T breakup not only spurred the creation of competing long-distance networks, it also paved the way for the low- cost connections needed to make the Internet take off.

DAVID GREENBLATT, COO, NET2PHONE: So it opened the door for scientists, and developers and venture capital to all get together to think of what are new services we can provide? Here, now comes the Internet, wow, we can take all this gusto, and this desire, and this open forum, and we can now produce wonderful products.

UTLEY: So much gusto that Net2phone now has a new investor, none other than AT&T, which has the option to buy a majority stake in the company.

But then antitrust breakups often come full circle. Exxon and Mobil, which were the offspring of Standard Oil in 1911, merged 88 years later. The combination of content and distribution in Hollywood, broken up in the 1950s, is back together in media empires like Disney, Viacom and Time Warner, the parent company of CNN. The seven Baby Bells -- local phone companies created by the breakup of AT&T -- are now only four, after several merged back together.

KOVACIC: In many respects, this is putting some of the old trusts back together again. The basic assumptions in allowing that process to unfold are perhaps a greater appreciation that sometimes that greater size can increase efficiency and reduce costs. There's a greater sense that many of these domestic enterprises face effective competition from abroad.

UTLEY: So argues Bill Gates, as did AT&T, John D. Rockefeller and other monopolists.

If Bill Gates worries about what will happen to Microsoft, he might ponder this. When Standard Oil was broken up, John D. Rockefeller's fortune was $300 million. Two years later, because of his holdings in the new oil companies, it had tripled to $900 million -- equal to 2 percent of the nation's entire economy -- more than enough wealth to turn any monopolist into a philanthropist.

Garrick Utley, CNN, NEWSSTAND.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Next, Microsoft and your money: how the after-hours markets is taking the news. And once again, you can get in on our interactive discussion about the Microsoft ruling by e-mailing greta.NEWSSTAND@cnn.com, or call 404-221-1855.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PELTZ: It has been a bad year for Microsoft stock, mostly because of jitters about the antitrust case. For a look at what happened before and after today's ruling came out, here's Tony Guida with our "MONEYLINE" update.

TONY GUIDA, CNN ANCHOR: Perri, Microsoft, not surprisingly, was the most heavily-traded stock on Wall Street today. More than 36 million shares changed hands. Investors had already figured what was coming from the judge, so they bid the stock up nearly a dollar in regular trading.

Once the decision was out, after-hours trading in Microsoft turned brisk as well. The stock gained nearly a $1.50 more. But Wall Street analysts are split on what happens now. Some acknowledge the judge's ruling lifts a cloud over the company. The stock after all is down 40 percent in just five months. Others worry about remedies that could be implemented as the appeals process drags on. That might force them to reassess their earnings estimates. Yet most analysts have a buy rating or at least a hold on the stock, and some are downright bullish.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS MORTENSON, DBAB: I think over the next year or so, it's more likely we're going to start seeing some news about the fundamentals of Microsoft, especially things like Windows 2000, which is a major new product cycle, and we think could have a positive impact on the stock.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GUIDA: Investors' optimism today about Microsoft spilled over into other major tech stocks today. And an analyst at Goldman Sachs had some bullish comments about IBM. Together they provided a pleasant day in the technology patch. The Nasdaq climbed 82 points, taking back Tuesday's losses, to close at 3,839. Computer hardware and Internet shares were among the winners. IBM was the clear winner on the Big Board, accounting for more than half the rise in the Dow. The Dow gained 77 points. It finished at 10,812. IBM gained nearly $8. Bonds finished mixed. The 10-year-note lost nearly a quarter of a point. The yield at 6.15 percent. The 30-year bond was unchanged.

That's our "MONEYLINE" update. Let's get back now to Perri Peltz. PELTZ: And coming up, a new controversy for a controversial abortion pill. And AT&T gets disconnected while trying to dial up higher long distance rates for some of its customers. We'll have the details on these stories when NEWSSTAND returns in 30 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(Text not related to Microsoft ruling deleted for Law Center publication)

PELTZ: Now back to our lead story: Microsoft has been around since 1975 and started selling stock in March of 1986. And if you were smart enough to buy it, a $1,000 investment back then would be worth more than $410,000 today. It's estimated Bill Gates' share of Microsoft's stock is worth $52 billion: that $10 billion more than the value of all the gold in Fort Knox and more than the gross domestic product of Hungary. If you took 52 billion $1 bills, you'd have a stack more than 3,500 miles high, weighing 53,000 tons.

Well, some of those dollars probably came out of your pocket, because at least 90 percent of the world's computers use Windows. So if Microsoft is broken up, where will your money go?

CNN's Greta Van Susteren is standing-by to explore the possibilities.

I don't know, Greta: I still can't get over this 53,000 tons of $1 bills. That's a lot.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It certainly is, Perri. And Microsoft does lots more than even Windows these days, and even more than applications such as World, Excel, Outlook, and Interest Explorer. Microsoft is the MS and MSNBC, and the MS and Internet provider and content service.

In just a minute, a couple of guests will join me for a look into the future. We'll also include your calls, and the address is greta.newsstand@cnn.com, or call 404-221-1855.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAN SUSTEREN: More reaction -- more reaction now to the federal judge's landmark ruling today that would divide Microsoft into two companies. Joining us from our Washington bureau is Microsoft legal consultant Rick Rule, who practices primarily in the areas of U.S. and international antitrust law. And in our New York bureau is antitrust lawyer Kevin Arquitte, who's represented Microsoft's rivals.

Gentlemen, thank you both for coming here tonight.

Let me go first to you, Rick. Why should anyone care about this ruling other than shareholders in Microsoft?

RICK RULE, MICROSOFT LEGAL CONSULTANT: Well, I think a lot of people ought to care. Consumers should care, I think. The effect is going to be, if this ever went into effect, would be to slow down the rate of innovation, increase prices of software. I think other companies would have to be concerned, because if this precedent stood, it would invite a number of lawsuits against a number of companies.

I think the good thing, though, is that, you know, we're sort of only halfway, we're at the halftime, I guess you might say, of this process. I think this case is clearly going to be decided in the Court of Appeals, and when all is said and done, I think Microsoft will prevail and this threat of an order will just be an academic issue at that point.

VAN SUSTEREN: Kevin, is this so terrible, what Microsoft has done? According to Bill Gates, who appeared earlier on CNN's -- on CNN's "MONEYLINE," he said that prices have actually been going down with computers, and he also talked about how many different types of software there is out there. Does it really harm the American people to have it as one company?

KEVIN ARQUITTE, ANTITRUST ATTORNEY: Isn't it interesting that what he talked about are things that really don't have to do with him. It's true that computer prices have done. Microsoft doesn't make computers. The product they make, the operating system, the price hasn't gone down. And I think that really makes the point.

You've seen all kinds of innovation on the Internet with respect to computer performance and so on except with respect to the operating system, and the reason is because there's only player out there.

I agree with Rick that the focus should be on consumers, and consumers should hail this ruling, because it's going to increase innovation as companies now have incentives to get out there and compete, the way we have in every other industry in our marketplace.

VAN SUSTEREN: Kevin, what -- in terms of looking at this decision, though, is the judge saying what's going to happen in the future, it's going to harm us in the future? Or is he saying, look, this is how we are harmed now?

ARQUITTE: It's really two things, I think, Greta: He is talking about how we're harmed now and how innovation has been stifled with respect to a whole lot of different technologies. But one reason he said he wanted to get this opinion into place so quickly is because he says that there's evidence that Microsoft is trying to expand its empire and to steal new technologies. And so we really ought to get this case through the appeals process so that final decisions can be made and that everybody can get on with their lives.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK, Rick, I'm going to give you a chance to respond, but we're going to take a break first. And we're going to come back, and when we come back, we're going to include your calls and e-mail questions. We'll be right back.

The address is greta.newsstand@cnn.com, or call 404-221-1855.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAN SUSTEREN: Welcome back. We're talking about the Microsoft breakup ruling.

Right before we went to break, I said I would give a chance to respond.

When the judge wrote the order, is he talking about harm consumers have now, or is he saying it's going to happen in the future?

RULE: Well what I think he was talking about is very speculative. I mean, even in his opinion, he recognized that Microsoft made it easier for consumers to get to the Internet. Essentially, it's being condemned for giving away the opportunity for people to reach the Internet, instead of having to pay for it. What he said is that in the absence of Microsoft's conduct, there would be more innovation. But this is the most innovative industry in the history really of the world. You have competitors like Linux, which are the darlings of venture capitalists, getting all manner of capital to fund their projects. Kevin represents a number of the competitors who've been able to get plenty of capital. This is a very, very innovative industry. And the only people who are really hailing this as a victory for consumers are lawyers, lawyers who represent the competitors, lawyers who represent, they hope, an opportunity to get treble damages from Microsoft. I think most people who represent consumers and understand consumers know this is a problem.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well let's hear from our consumers. We have an e-mail that's arrived, and it's from RThomas, and it reads as follows: "Why does the federal government go after Microsoft while approving the mergers of megacorporations, like drugs, aerospace, telecommunications and others?" That's from RThomas. Kevin, let me ask you and let me throw into the mix, there's a big merger, AOL and Time Warner, which is the parent company of CNN, which is a possibility, as well as United Airlines and also U.S. Airways. Why is the government going after Microsoft, and do you think they'll go after those companies?

ARQUITTE: Well, the government does have an active merger policy. The fact of the matter is that most mergers are procompetitive, and so the government doesn't go through it. But it's been pretty active recently. Even right as we speak, BP and Arco are having to divest a lot of assets if they want to go forward with their merger. Exxon and Mobil the same thing. I think that this United Airlines-U.S. Airways deal is going to get a lot of tough scrutiny. The government is pretty active in the merger area.

VAN SUSTEREN: And what about -- let me throw in the mix -- AOL and Time Warner? Do have do you have a comment on that one, which is our parent company of CNN?

ARQUITTE: Well again, I think that's going to be looked at very hard, because of the different issues that come up. And we see that over in Europe, the European authorities are giving that a tough look as well.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Well, we have a caller from the state of California. Go ahead caller.

CALLER: Hi. First of all, I'd like to say to Mr. Gates representative, I'm not a lawyer, and I do work in the human resources management, and I am thrilled. I just wonder why it took the government so long to do something about Mr. Gates? All you have to do is to be a consumer, and put a computer in your small business and then go out and try to diversify it minus Microsoft, and it cannot be done.

VAN SUSTEREN: Rick, I think that's a good question for you.

RULE: Well, there's no question there are alternatives. I mean, there's Linux. Kevin represents clients who provide alternatives, but the fact is Microsoft has succeeded by disseminating a platform that tens of thousands of independent software vendors use to make great software with. They use Microsoft's platform. They aren't related to Microsoft.

I mean, sure, nothing is perfect in life in terms of software, but what Microsoft has done in terms of making computers available to all of us, making the Internet available to all of us, is truly miraculous, and the fact is that you're taking a company that really is not organized to be split up, like an AT&T, and for the first time in 33 years, you've got the court talking about breaking up a company with people who are essentially going to say, I don't want to have my business run by the government. I don't want to have the government telling me how to design software. They'll go elsewhere. And then, essentially there won't be updates of Windows, and there's going to be confusions, a lot of those independent software vendors who rely on the Microsoft platform are going to have to go elsewhere. It's going to be cost in the economy. Prices are going to increase. It's really not a good scenario, unless what I think will happen is the court of appeals comes in and essentially sets the record straight, applies the law as it has been interpreted for the last 25 years, and recognizes that Microsoft is being condemned for aggressive, but nonpredatory competition that makes life perhaps difficult for competitors, but basically benefits consumers.

VAN SUSTEREN: Kevin, do you think this decision -- the federal judge has given Microsoft four months to put together a process to do this division into two companies. Do you think that decision will be put on hold by either the federal court or the court of appeals until the court of appeals has reviewed the case?

ARQUITTE: No I don't. I think that the judge and the government's proposal was quite smart in the sense that it divided up the remedy into -- the side of the breakup, which doesn't go into effect until all the appeals have taken place, and then the different things that Microsoft is supposed to do in the interim, like treat everybody equally, and not discriminate and retaliate against people -- things they should be doing anyway -- that's the type of thing that goes into effect right away.

Wait a second, Rick, you've talked for quite a while. It's my turn.

What Microsoft would have to show is that there would be irreparable harm for them to succeed. And in fact in a Securities filing they just made a few weeks ago, they said that none of this litigation was intended to have a material adverse effect on the company.

VAN SUSTEREN: And, Rick, let me give you 20 seconds. You have 20 seconds.

RULE: I think that's -- you know, this is typical, people are distorting the record. What Microsoft said is it doesn't think this litigation will have a material affect because it thinks it will win. The fact is that, you know, this is going to have a big impact on consumers and on Microsoft if it's upheld, and if...

VAN SUSTEREN: And, Rick, I'm going have to interrupt you, because that's all the time we have now. I know the litigation goes on and on and on, but we have to leave now, and tomorrow, on "BURDEN OF PROOF," "BURDEN OF PROOF" will look at the Microsoft case and will see whether or the leapfrog in the U.S. Court of Appeals will happen. Will Microsoft end up going directly to the Supreme Court? Watch "BURDEN OF PROOF" at 12:30 p.m. Eastern.

Now back to Perri in New York.

PELTZ: All right, Greta, thanks very much.

"SPORTS TONIGHT" is coming up. Here's Fred Hickman from the CNN/"Sports Illustrated" newsroom with a preview.

FRED HICKMAN, CNN/"SPORTS ILLUSTRATED": Coming up on "SPORTS TONIGHT," dem's fighting words, in Chicago, where superstar Sammy Sosa and manager Don Baylor try to settle their differences, in Atlanta, where John Rocker says he may become a stock broker rather than report to the minors, in Los Angeles, where the Pacers and Lakers get the NBA finals off to a rousing start, and in New Jersey, where the Stars try to figure out how to beat the Devils and stay alive in the playoffs. "SPORTS TONIGHT," we are fit and in fighting shape.

PELTZ: Excellent.

Coming up tomorrow, they say art is in the eye of the beholder. And the cutting edge of contemporary art is then waiting for your eyes on the Internet. We're going to surf on by for a look. That's tomorrow at 10:00 p.m. Eastern.

I'm Perri Peltz. Good night from the NEWSSTAND.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

For more LAW news, myCNN.com will bring you news from the areas and subjects you select.

See related sites about LAW

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.