Microsoft Trial Takes a Consumer Turn

Turning the spotlight on the impact of Microsoft Corp.’s business tactics on consumers, the government introduced evidence Tuesday to bolster its claim that Microsoft’s integration of its Web browser into Windows 95 hurts PC users.

Written and oral testimony from aerospace giant Boeing Co. and two leading computer manufacturers showed dismay that Microsoft elected to make its Internet browser a part of its Windows operating system.

And two government expert witnesses backed up those misgivings, saying that the integration of the browser sometimes confused users, created higher software support costs for companies and discouraged independent software developers from creating new programs for competing operating systems.

Microsoft attorney Richard Pepperman attacked those claims in court Tuesday, focusing in particular on government expert Glenn Weadock, a software consultant who has challenged Microsoft’s view that its Internet Explorer browser and Windows operating system are a seamless, integrated product. Pepperman said Web browser integration is more convenient and makes computers easier to use.

“What costs or risks are associated with integrating the means of access” to the Internet, Pepperman asked Weadock.

Weadock responded that “it is preferable” that computer users be free to pick the product that fits their particular needs.

Tuesday’s testimony and written evidence on the impact of Web browser integration was the government’s first attempt in the 5-week-old trial to show how Microsoft’s leveraging of its dominant Windows operating system software allegedly hurts consumers.

The government’s four previous witnesses were used largely to bolster claims that Microsoft is a monopoly and that the company’s business practices are anti-competitive and thwart software innovation. The lack of focus on customers had sparked criticism from George Washington University professor William E. Kovacic and other experts that the government wasn’t effectively demonstrating any alleged consumer harm caused by Microsoft.

That dismay grew when the government recently dropped Scott Vesey from its list of 12 witnesses. He is a Boeing product manager who had been expected to testify extensively about Boeing’s experience with various Microsoft products.

Instead of calling Vesey to the witness stand, the government elected to present him on videotape. Vesey was questioned about why Boeing selected the Web browser made by Microsoft archrival Netscape Communications Corp.

He said the Netscape browser eased support costs because it offered a “common user interface” for the mix of Windows, Macintosh and Unix systems used by Boeing.

The government went on to introduce documents from PC makers Gateway Inc. and Packard Bell/NEC suggesting that they had reservations about browser integration too.