Confidence Expressed by Microsoft’s Lawyers

After two months in court and more than 30 witnesses, testimony in the Microsoft Corp. antitrust trial drew to a close Friday with the company’s lawyers voicing confidence they had put on a strong defense against the nine states that have been pressing for harsher penalties.

The end of testimony in the landmark trial paves the way for the resolution of one of the most important business cases since the breakup of Standard Oil Co. a century ago.

Since the start of the trial March 18, the District of Columbia, California and eight other states have argued that tough penalties must be assessed against Microsoft to control its monopolistic behavior. The states want the company to be required to produce a modular version of its Windows operating system that consumers and PC makers can customize by replacing the Internet Explorer Web browser, Windows Media Player and other key software with products from rivals.

The holdouts were unhappy with an out-of-court deal the Justice Department reached with Microsoft in November that ended the federal government’s pursuit of the world’s largest software company.

However, Microsoft lawyers seemed confident Friday that the states would fail in their quest.

“We have presented what we believe is very powerful and convincing evidence of just how ... draconian the states’ proposed remedies are,” Dan K. Webb, Microsoft’s lead trial lawyer, told reporters after Friday’s court session.

Thomas Greene, an assistant attorney in the California attorney general’s office, saw the case as more evenly matched: “This will be a very difficult decision for the court, but I think we have given her [U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly] a very rich record.”

Microsoft officially will rest its case next week, after dealing with several procedural matters.

Kollar-Kotelly will then hear a brief oral presentation from both sides on the enforcement of antitrust remedies.

The judge has tentatively scheduled closing arguments for early June and is expected to issue her final ruling on the case this summer.

The final testimony in the case was from University of Colorado computer scientist John K. Bennett, a Microsoft witness who said it would be costly for the company to make components of its flagship Windows operating system removable and meet other state demands.

At one point, Bennett complained that a state proposal to require Microsoft to disclose software code interfaces to manufacturers of computer peripherals is so broad it would include “companies that make computer cables, printer cartridges or computer tables for people’s homes.”

Bennett acknowledged, however, that it would be technically possible to remove certain components from Windows and replace them with competitive products that could perform a similar function.

Despite Microsoft’s confidence in its courtroom performance, however, neither side had blockbuster moments that might give them an upper hand in the legal dispute.

Microsoft, which called 18 witnesses, nevertheless seemed to outmaneuver the states, which called 15 witnesses of their own. The states’ lawyers repeatedly irritated Kollar-Kotelly by trying to introduce evidence late in the trial or evidence that the jurist complained was not relevant.

Although Kollar-Kotelly has seemed to side procedurally with Microsoft almost as much as the initial trial judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson, sided substantively with the government in the first trial, she has given little indication about how she might rule.

The unresolved legal motions pending before the judge also present a quandary. Kollar-Kotelly could, in effect, end the case without addressing many of the finer points of software technology.

For example, pending before Kollar-Kotelly is a Microsoft motion claiming that the holdout states don’t have legal standing to pursue their own case after the Justice Department settled.

In a filing last month, the Justice Department disagreed with that assertion but, nevertheless, said the states face a high burden of proof in seeking strong sanctions that Microsoft agreed to in its pact with the Justice Department.

Kollar-Kotelly also has the option of trying to combine the two proposals, perhaps accepting the negotiated deal but adding some elements from the states’ plan.

Next week, she will hear further from both sides on the pending motions and make final decisions on them.