Microsoft wraps up antitrust testimony

Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON: Microsoft Corp. closed out testimony in its landmark antitrust

case on Friday, declaring that the states seeking strict sanctions against the

company had failed to prove their case.

Microsoft's final witness left the stand, ending 32 days of testimony --

including an appearance by company chairman Bill Gates -- on how best to prevent

future antitrust violations.

"Microsoft has clearly shown that consumers, Microsoft, and the entire

(personal computer) ecosystem would suffer enormous and irreparable harm if the

non-settling states proposal is implemented," Dan Webb, an attorney for

Microsoft, told reporters.

Microsoft's fate rests in the hands of US District Judge Colleen

Kollar-Kotelly who is also weighing a proposed settlement the company reached

with the US Justice Department in November. An attorney for the states said

Microsoft's case amounted to a "monopoly-is-good-for-you argument."

"The question is, have they been so frightening that she's unwilling to

come in our direction," said Tom Greene, assistant attorney general for

California. The judge is expected to hear further arguments from the two legal

teams starting Wednesday next week, including presentations on how an antitrust

remedy should be enforced.

The two sides are tentatively scheduled to submit their proposed

fact-findings and legal conclusions by mid-June. The hold-out states, including

California, Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut, have rejected the settlement as

too weak despite the signatures of nine other states.

Close call



Chicago-based antitrust attorney Hillard Sterling said the case is a
"close call." He said Microsoft had a better chance of prevailing

because Microsoft attorneys had learned from their mistakes during the initial

trial, including their earlier decision not to call Gates as a witness.

"Microsoft also did a better job of staying focused on the issue at

hand," said Sterling of Gordon & Glickson LLC. Earlier on Friday,

Microsoft's last witness, University of Colorado computer science professor John

Bennett, conceded that it would be possible to remove features from the

company's Windows operating system as the non-settling states propose.

Bennett had testified on Thursday that a version of Windows with removable

features was "technically infeasible" but on Friday he said anything

was possible with software. "It's a question of the degree of difficulty

and the amount of work that would be required," said Bennett.

The states say a modular version of Windows, allowing features like the

Internet browser and media player to be removed, would help level the

competitive playing field for non-Microsoft software.

But Microsoft has insisted that Windows is highly dependent on all its parts

and would not work properly with some features removed.

Computer expert



Under the proposed settlement with the Justice Department, Microsoft would
let computer makers hide desktop icons for some Windows features to allow the

promotion of competing software.

A federal appeals court last June upheld the original trial court's finding

that Microsoft illegally maintained its Windows monopoly through acts that

included commingling its Internet Explorer code with Windows to fend off

Netscape. But the appellate judges rejected Jackson's breakup order and sent the

case back to a new judge, Kollar-Kotelly, to consider the most appropriate

remedy.

Bennett had said in written testimony that the states' proposal for a modular

operating system would exponentially increase the cost of testing and supporting

Windows. States attorney Steve Kuney countered by suggesting Bennett was

distorting the states' proposal and exaggerating its impact on Windows.

Kuney challenged Bennett's claim that the states would force Microsoft to

make almost every piece of Windows removable. Bennett acknowledged that it would

be possible to remove software features like the Internet Explorer browser from

Windows and replace them with other companies' software.

"From the (computer) user's perspective it's relatively straightforward

to replace the browser," Bennett said. But he added that the browser had

many complicated parts "that would have to be replicated." "Are

you testifying it would be technically infeasible?" Kuney asked.

"No, I'm saying it would have to be done," Bennett replied.