WASHINGTON -- What a difference a word makes.
As nine states press for stronger antitrust penalties against Microsoft, the embattled company has staunchly maintained that its fiercest rivals -- such as AOL Time Warner, Palm and Sun Microsystems -- essentially "developed" many provisions of the states' 42-page proposed sanctions (PDF) for their own benefit.
But University of Virginia professor Kenneth Elzinga, whom Microsoft summoned for its defense, dismissed that longstanding argument in federal court on Thursday.
Under cross-examination from states' attorney Steven Kuney, Elzinga downplayed the role that Microsoft's competitors may have played in developing the proposed sanctions.
"Are you testifying under oath that that proposal was developed by Microsoft's competitors?" Kuney asked.
"Perhaps 'supported' is a better word than 'developed,'" Elzinga admitted.
Elzinga later clarified his position, charging that the states took input from Microsoft's competitors while drafting the proposed sanctions.
"In my mind there doesn't seem much doubt that competitors had a role in the states' remedies," Elzinga said. "If they didn't play any role, or try to play a role, they sure wasted a lot of money."
Elzinga then attacked the testimony of economist Carl Shapiro, a witness for the states who saw no problem with the influence Microsoft's competitors had on the states' proposal.
"What bothers me is that Professor Shapiro seems indifferent about the role the competitors played," Elzinga said. "I find little independent evaluation of the competitors' information -- it seems to me that he fell on one side of the horse."
Elzinga also criticized a provision calling for a stripped-down or "unbundled" version of the Windows operating system with Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and other components yanked.
Elzinga argued that an unbundled Windows would fragment Windows into different editions that wouldn't interoperate -- effectively creating incompatible versions and multiple markets for applications.
"It's my position that if this remedy were enacted, it'd be better if this case had never been filed," Elzinga said.
Kuney fired back, targeting Microsoft claims that an unbundling proposal would be unfeasible.
"Why is it that with respect to the Microsoft remedy, Microsoft can identify the code that identifies Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, but with respect to the states' remedy, identifying seems ambiguous?" asked Kuney.
"To unbind the Windows operating system would detract from the performance of what's left in the operating system," said Elzinga.
Testifying in the eighth week of hearings, Elzinga is the 18th witness to take the stand on behalf of Microsoft.
The nine still-litigating states are California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah and West Virginia.
Nine other states and the Justice Department have reached a tentative settlement that must be approved by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
Witnesses called by Microsoft are currently testifying during the courtroom proceedings, which are expected to last until early next week.
The last witness for Microsoft will be computer scientist John Bennett of the University of Colorado.
