Microsoft witness concedes settlement is ambiguous

A Microsoft witness in the antitrust case conceded that the antitrust

settlement between the government and Microsoft is "ambiguous" about

how Microsoft should provide technical information to software developers.

The nine states opposing the settlement want detailed guidelines to force

Microsoft to release certain types of technical information to software and

hardware developers to ensure their products can work just as effectively with

Microsoft products as those made by Microsoft or companies that have special

relationships with Microsoft.

States' lawyer Kevin Hodges asked Computer Sciences MIT professor Stuart

Madnick, if the lack of definition of terms like "interoperability'' and

"technical information'' left the federal settlement "open to

interpretation by various people.'' Madnick agreed, saying, "It is

ambiguous in that regard."

In supporting Microsoft's position Madnick told Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly

that he doubts Microsoft could comply with the states' requirement to develop a

version of Windows that would allow computer manufacturers to remove certain

features like the Internet Explorer Web browser and its media player. Madnick

said Windows is made up of many separate files that are dependent on each other.

"Windows is much more like a house of cards."

Madnick's testimony will likely fall on deaf ears. Microsoft chief Bill gates

last week conceded that his company is already selling a version of Windows XP

that allows computer makers to leave out components such as Explorer and Media

Player components.