remedy for Microsoft’s antitrust violations. In particular, the court should consider which of the decree’s conduct restrictions remain viable in light of our modification of the original liability decision. While the task of drafting the remedies decree is for the District Court in the first instance, because of the unusually convoluted nature of the proceedings thus far, and a desire to advance the ultimate resolution of this important controversy, we offer some further guidance for the exercise of that discretion. F. On Remand As a general matter, a district court is afforded broad discretion to enter that relief it calculates will best remedy the conduct it has found to be unlawful. See, e.g., Woerner v. United States Small Bus. Admin., 934 F.2d 1277, 1279 (D.C.Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). This is no less true in antitrust cases. See,
holding that court reviews trial courts decision to release a defendant for abuse of discretion holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not bedisturbed absent an abuse of discretion holding that an appellate court reviews a trial courts grant of a summary judgment motion de novo because it is a question of law recognizing that an appellate court reviews a trial courts decision whether or not to grant equitable relief only for an abuse of discretion holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion