As the landmark antitrust trial against Microsoft began its second week, the company also tried to show it had won contracts for Internet browser software on its own merits and because of Netscape's mistakes.

What actually happened at the June 21, 1995, meeting is crucial to the case brought by the federal government and 20 states against Microsoft.

The government and Netscape charge that Microsoft illegally proposed dividing the market for Internet browser software and threatened to crush Netscape if it did not cooperate.

Microsoft has denied any wrongdoing and told the court last week that Netscape must have invented its account of the meeting.

On Monday, Microsoft lawyer John Warden kept up his attack on Netscape's credibility in a fourth day of cross examining Netscape chief executive Jim Barksdale.

"Isn't it a factthat the June 21, 1995 meeting was held for the purpose of creating something that could be called a record to be delivered to the Department of Justice to spur them on to action against Microsoft," Warden asked.

"That's absurd," Barksdale replied.

At another point, Warden asked Barksdale why Netscape continued to ask Microsoft for a piece of software known as a "dialler" if it believed it had received unlawful proposals.

Barksdale said that there were many reasons to continue doing business with Microsoft. "We have no interest in mooning the giant," he said, using a colloquial phrase for showing one's unclothed rear end. "It's just not the way business is done."

The government's case relies in part on notes Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen made of the meeting.

New documents introduce in court include those notes attached to a letter sent on June 23, 1995, to the justice department by Netscape outside counsel Gary Reback, in response to a subpoena.

The Reback letter and attached note would seemto help buttress the government's position that Andreessen's account of events was immediate and accurate.

Reback wrote: "The general theme of the negotiation has been that Microsoft owns the platform (the Windows system needed to run Netscape's browser on personal computers) and that if Netscape is going to compete with Microsoft in any way... then Microsoft will competitively harm Netscape."

Microsoft filed a motion with the court accusing the government of "flagrant discovery misconduct" by only disclosing the documents this weekend.

Warden used a substantial part of his final day grilling Barksdale to introduce E-mails and internal Netscape documents in an effort to show that Microsoft had competed against Netscape on the merits of its software.

The government alleges Microsoft used its monopoly power as the maker of the operating software that runs most personal computers to elbow Netscape aside.

Warden questioned Barksdale closely on negotiations with Intuit Inc., which makes the popular homefinancial programme "Quicken", and needed a browser.

Microsoft won that contract and soon after Netscape had a meeting to review why it lost. Warden presented an internal Netscape memo with bullet points used in that meeting. For example, Netscape noted that it had offered but was unable to deliver several features as promised.

"Intuit offered you the business and you couldn't deliver,"said Warden.

"No, sir," replied Barksdale, who argued that his company lost because Microsoft used its Windows franchise to coerce Intuit. "Microsoft offered to embed certain Quicken items in its Windows operating system, which was something we could not offer."

The trial before district judge Thomas Penfield Jackson is expected to last into December.