WASHINGTON A computer expert testified in the Microsoftantitrusttrial today that there was no technical reason for the softwaregiantto bundle its Web browser into its popular Windows operating system.Edward Felten, a computer science professor at PrincetonUniversity, testified in December to describe a program he createdthat disabled Microsoft's browser, Internet Explorer, withinWindows.He took the stand today after government attorneys introduced asevidence a newer version of his program, as well as a program toreinstall the browser.
"There are many ways in which Microsoft can go about deliveringWindows 98 without IE," Felten said.He testified that his method of removing the browser, which hesaid did not affect the overall operation of Windows, was not theonly way it could be done."The point of this is to show that Microsoft can do this," hesaid.Felten was the last rebuttal witness called by the JusticeDepartment in the antitrust trial.On Wednesday, attorneys questioned an IBM manager who shrugged offe-mails that Microsoft said contradicted his sensational courtroomallegations that the software giant offered price discounts onWindows if IBM would agree not to distribute rival Internetsoftware.Microsoft confronted Garry Norris, a mid-level executive, withe-mail from another IBM employee that appeared to dispute the claimthat Microsoft had pressured IBM to distribute Explorer softwareinstead of software from rival Netscape Communications Corp."There is no proposal on the table from Microsoft to exclusivelybundle IE on the PC Co. line," IBM's Scott Bosworth wrote in theApril 1997 e-mail. The message was sent shortly after Norris wastransferred within International Business Machines Corp. to anotherdivision."I guess after I left, they took it off the table," Norris said.He insisted that his handwritten notes from a meeting in March1997 with Microsoft were accurate, saying Microsoft offered toincrease rebates available under its market-development agreementsifIBM promised not to distribute Netscape's software."No Netscape & receive more MDA $ across the PC Co.," he wrote.His testimony supported another of the government's claims: thatMicrosoft illegally wields its influence over its dominant Windowsoperating system to crush competitors.Microsoft lawyer Rick Pepperman grew exasperated over two days ashe questioned Norris.Norris accommodated the Justice Department's lawyer with richanswers and an unfailing memory, but resisted Pepperman on everyresponse, almost as Microsoft chief Bill Gates had fought withgovernment lawyers when he was questioned over three days lastsummer.As Pepperman grew more and more frustrated throughout Wednesday,Norris smiled at one point, hands spread, and told him calmly, "I'mjust trying to answer your questions, counselor."Pepperman also confronted Norris with an e-mail summary by anotherIBM employee of the disputed March 1997 meeting in which there wasnomention of any offer from Microsoft regarding Netscape.Norris described the e-mail as a "partial summary" and said hecalled his colleague on the telephone, who told him he wanted Norristo "handle that" with senior executives.Norris acknowledged that the software giant never explicitlyoffered price discounts on Windows if IBM agreed to sacrifice itsrival OS/2 computer software.Earlier, he had cited a Microsoft contract offering discounts of$1 to $3 per copy of Windows, for example, if IBM would adoptWindows"as the standard operating system for IBM" and mention Windows astheonly operating system in IBM advertisements.The government suggested and Norris agreed that the contractualclauses actually were incentives for IBM to abandon its OS/2software, which directly competed with Windows. Norris said IBMnever agreed to those provisions.Norris conceded the contract does not explicitly require IBM toreduce or stop sales of its software. But he maintained that thecumulative effect of the contract "has the effect of killing OS/2 inthe marketplace."
No comments:
Post a Comment