Viewing Microsoft Through Different Windows
From October 19 until a lengthy recess was declared on Friday, 24 witnesses took their turn on the stand in the government’s landmark antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. What they said in written depositions and how they handled cross-examination will in large part shape the final decision, expected sometime in late spring, of U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. Here is a summary of what they said, compiled by staff writer Jube Shiver Jr., who has been covering the trial.
Government Witnesses
James Barksdale, chief executive of Netscape Communications Corp. Barksdale testified that Microsoft used its dominant Windows operating system to thwart Netscape and push Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser on computer makers and consumers. He said Microsoft’s motivation was the fear that Netscape’s Web browser would develop into a competing platform for computer applications that would challenge Windows.
David Colburn, senior vice president of business affairs at America Online Inc. Testified that the key reason AOL dropped Netscape and embraced Microsoft’s Internet Explorer in 1996 was to get Microsoft to bundle AOL’s software with its Windows operating system. But he also admitted that AOL’s software already was being shipped with about 90% of all home computers at the time the browser contract was being negotiated with Microsoft.
Avadis Tevanian Jr., senior vice president of software engineering at Apple Computer Inc. Testified that Microsoft “sabotaged” Apple’s QuickTime multimedia software product so that it wouldn’t work with the Windows operating system and would not pose a threat to a rival Microsoft multimedia product called NetShow. He also accused Microsoft of pressuring Apple to stop development of QuickTime, quoting Microsoft officials as asking Apple to “knife the baby.”
Steven D. McGeady, Intel Corp. vice president in charge of content and multimedia software. Testified that Microsoft pressured his company to stay out of the software field and threatened to withdraw support for future Intel computer chips if the company developed software that Microsoft viewed as a threat. Microsoft lawyers painted McGeady as a disgruntled lone wolf.
Glenn Weadock, software consultant. Testified that Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is not a product “integrated” into Windows but one that had a separate market altogether. He also said the browser could be easily separated from Windows.
John Soyring, vice president of personal software products, IBM Corp. Testified that IBM’s OS/2 computer operating system failed in the marketplace because Microsoft discouraged software developers from creating software applications for OS/2. He also disputed Microsoft’s claims that computer users expect browsers to be a part of the operating system.
Frederick Warren-Boulton, economist and consultant. Said that Microsoft has “astonishing” profit margins of 38.5% due to its ability to maintain software prices above market levels. He also said Microsoft has monopoly market power.
James Gosling, fellow and vice president at Sun Microsystems Inc. Testified that Microsoft undermined Sun’s versatile Java software programming language by creating a proprietary version of Java. Under cross-examination by Microsoft lawyers, however, Gosling backed away from Sun’s “write once--run anywhere” promise for Java, calling the description a “marketing term.”
David Farber, director of distributed computing at the University of Pennsylvania. Testified that there is no technical necessity for Microsoft to bundle its Internet Explorer browser with Windows and that he considers the browser a separate application, not part of the operating system as Microsoft contends.
Edward Felten, director of the Secure Internet Programming Laboratory, Princeton University. Testified that it is possible to remove Web-browsing functions from Windows 95 and Windows 98 without harming other functions of the operating systems.
William Harris Jr., president of Intuit Inc. Undermining government claims, Harris testified that he considered Microsoft’s Internet Explorer the best browser for his company’s Quicken personal finance software. He said Intuit would have chosen Microsoft’s browser even without an alleged promise from Microsoft to bundle some Intuit software with Windows.
Franklin Fisher, economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Said he considers Microsoft a monopoly and unless the government prevails against the software giant, “we’re going to live in a Microsoft world.”
Microsoft Witnesses
Richard Schmalensee, dean, Sloan School of Business, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Microsoft’s lead witness contended Microsoft does not have monopoly power and testified that the software industry is intensely competitive. However, under cross-examination Schmalensee was forced to disavow some economic claims he made earlier in his career that contradicted his stance in the Microsoft case. “What could I have been thinking?” Schmalensee remarked after being confronted with those writings.
Paul Maritz, Microsoft vice president for platforms and applications. Testified that while Windows runs more than 90% of the world’s PCs today, Microsoft’s flagship operating system faces competition from rivals including Linux, Apple’s Mac OS and Be Inc.’s BeOS. However, Maritz acknowledged that Microsoft offered financial incentives to persuade archrival Netscape to support Microsoft’s Internet technologies rather than compete by offering an alternative Internet-browsing platform.
James Allchin, Microsoft senior vice president for personal and business systems. Allchin, the Microsoft executive in charge of Windows, testified that integrating Internet Explorer with Windows is good for consumers because it reduces confusion and is more efficient. Allchin, however, was forced by the government’s lead trial lawyer to admit discrepancies in a Microsoft videotaped demonstration that he had offered to bolster arguments about the benefits of browser integration.
Michael Devlin, president of Rational Software Corp. Devlin, the president of a $311-million software company, portrayed Microsoft as a generous and supportive partner, while acknowledging that Microsoft’s continued dominance benefits him and other software developers.
William Poole, Microsoft’s senior director of business development for Windows. Testified that Microsoft’s controversial agreements with Internet content providers like Disney and Intuit had little if any effect on browser usage. But Poole acknowledged that Microsoft required some of them who sought to be featured on the Windows 98 channel bar to limit or curtail their promotion of the Netscape browser.
Cameron Myhrvold, vice president of Microsoft’s Internet customer unit. Myhrvold testified that it was Netscape’s poor business judgment, not Microsoft’s contracts with Internet service providers, that hurt demand for Netscape’s browser.
Brad Chase, vice president of marketing, personal and business systems at Microsoft. The key executive in charge of Microsoft’s browser development accused America Online of delaying plans to drop Microsoft’s browser out of fear that such a move might damage the government’s antitrust case against Microsoft.
John Rose, senior vice president of Compaq Computer Corp. An official of one of Microsoft’s longtime partners testified that his company has no “viable alternative” to offering Microsoft Windows on personal computers. He also acknowledged that Microsoft raised its prices to Compaq last year at a time when most other PC component prices fell.
Daniel Rosen, Microsoft’s general manager of new technology. Contradicting his previous assertions as well as those of Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, Rosen testified that the company didn’t view other Internet browsers as a competitive threat.
Eric Engstrom, Microsoft vice president for multimedia. Disputed allegations that the software giant pressured Apple Computer to drop its multimedia program, QuickTime, which competed with Microsoft’s rival NetShow technology. But he admitted that Microsoft wanted Apple to abandon QuickTime and embrace Microsoft’s multimedia tools instead.
Joachim Kempin, Microsoft senior vice president, original equipment manufacturer division. Defended his company’s contractual restrictions that limit the extent personal computer makers can customize the series of start-up screens that a computer user sees when loading Windows.
Robert Muglia, a Microsoft senior vice president of tools. Testified that Microsoft didn’t try to undermine Sun Microsystems’ rival Java technology, which creates software programs that can run on a range of computers. But Muglia said Microsoft did encourage software developers to use Windows-specific features, a tactic that produced software that did not effectively run on non-Windows operating systems.
*
A SETTLEMENT?
Observers say it is in the government’s and Microsoft’s best interests to start negotiating. A1
