Appeal court judges savaged both the government case against Microsoft and its original federal judge - leading some US commentators to believe that the software giant could win its appeal.After the two-day hearing, the appeal court will take two to three months to present its ruling. This could involve referring the case back to the original federal court. The judge was hammered for deciding to break Microsoft in two after only a one-day hearing. But the appeal judges reserved their most scathing comments for Federal Judge Jackson's many appearances on TV and in print, indicating that Microsoft and Bill Gates were 'beyond the pale'. At one point, Jackson had compared Microsoft to drugs gangs and in another he talked of Bill Gates' resemblance to Napoleon. Moving on to the judgement, the appeal judges questioned the logic of splitting up Microsoft. They said that it would not solve most of the antitrust violations of which the company had been accused. Jackson had ordered that one new company would produce Windows, while the other would make other applications, such as Office. The appeals court pointed out that this would leave the operating system monopoly intact. Appeal Judge Douglas Ginsburg said: "Couldn't it develop its own internet browser from scratch? Then you'd be back in the same situation we're in now. Stranger still, even after the remedy, Microsoft retains the monopoly." Ginsburg was formerly head of the US Department of Justice's antitrust division. Another judge suggested that three companies, each with Windows, competing against each other would be more understandable. And the court suggested that the case for there being a separate browser market, and its distinction from a platform market, unproven and unclear. In effect, if there was no such market, there could be no monopoly.