(FORTUNE Magazine) – To a casual reader buried in the sheer volume of the business press' verbiage on the Microsoft case, the future may seem cut-and-dried--Microsoft faces the guillotine. Hardly. The software giant may well avoid the breakup Judge Jackson has ordered.

On appeal, Microsoft will likely make the case that severing the company into two would not be pro-competition--it may even argue that halving it would hinder competition in some markets. It would have a point. In databases, for instance, Oracle is by far the dominant supplier. Microsoft's cheaper and increasingly powerful alternative products have pushed prices down and prompted Oracle to innovate more rapidly. Further-more, Oracle, like all big software makers, wants to integrate its products so that customers can buy databases and associated applications in one package, thus making their IT systems less complex. Since Microsoft's ability to compete in this market would be impaired by a breakup that inhibits its ability to integrate, competition in databases might be lessened. A similar argument can be made about the role of Microsoft's lower-priced operating systems in the high-performance server market, where Sun Microsystems rules, or the role of Microsoft's Pocket PC software in keeping Palm on its toes.

Curiously enough, some of Microsoft's enemies may now want to position themselves as allies. Judge Jackson's ruling must give pause to some hyperaggressive outfits with dominant market share: America Online, Cisco, Intel, Oracle, and Palm Computing. What's more, many in Silicon Valley may be hurt by the ruling. Post-breakup, Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer might well move to the applications business. An orphaned Windows operating system would be trouble for the tech industry, given the vast number of companies that rely on it as the underpinning of their hardware and software. Expect to see some prominent Valley denizens start speaking out against a breakup.

And too many people underestimate the power of sheer tenacity, especially when fueled by enormous wealth. Gates and Ballmer have a deep, passionate, and genuine conviction that Microsoft serves society and consumers by empowering individuals with inexpensive tools. They simply cannot understand how people fail to see the benefits to the world of their low-price, high-volume software. Yes, this passion served them poorly during the trial, coming off as arrogance. Denying that they could ever have done anything wrong, even when faced with strong evidence to the contrary, Microsoft's managers turned off the press and angered the judge.

But upon appeal these leaders could convince a court that Judge Jackson failed to sufficiently examine Microsoft's overall impact on consumers and society. A more overarching analysis of the company's role could very well demonstrate that Microsoft has in fact created the societal benefits in which Gates and Ballmer so determinedly believe.

Finally, Microsoft could be saved by George W. Bush. The presidential candidate has already signaled his lack of sympathy for the government's case. And Bush's prospects seem bright. So look for a settlement on far less onerous terms, probably after Inauguration Day--Jan. 20, 2001. That's an anti-climactic solution that may not please the slavering press--but it may be the most likely scenario of all.

--David Kirkpatrick