A Microsoft executive has claimed that consumers would suffer
hardware and software incompatibilities if third-party Windows
licensees were allowed to remove pieces of the operating
system.
At the Microsoft remedy hearing yesterday, Robert Short,
vice-president for Windows core technology, explained that Windows
licensees could leave out key pieces of software, such as device
drivers, and make them work with Windows.
"Consumers have grown to expect and demand that they can go into
any computer store and purchase hardware that will just work on the
Windows system," Short said in his written direct testimony
prepared before his appearance in court.
Lawyer for the states Laurie Fulton asked why Short interpreted the
states' remedies to mean that licensees could pull device drivers
from Windows.
Short replied that the states' broad definition of middleware - any
software that exposes application programming interfaces - was at
fault because it would make device drivers susceptible to removal.
Drivers would come under the states' middleware definition.
In his written testimony, Short said that in an unbundled world,
Hewlett-Packard, for example, could license Windows and remove
drivers for all non-HP printers on the PCs that it sells. If a
customer purchased an HP PC and a Canon printer, the two would not
work together.
Fulton asked if Short objected to giving PC makers such
flexibility. "My objection would be that my team would be expected
to support that," he said.
If, as Short maintained, consumers like the "plug and play"
abilities of Windows that let them use a wide variety of hardware
with the operating system, then would they not continue to buy the
complete version of Windows that the states' remedy said could also
be sold, Fulton asked.
"I think they'll buy the cheapest," Short replied.
Fulton asked whether, under the states' remedy, Windows licensees
could also remove Internet access software from the operating
system, to which Short answered yes.
She then asked whether a PC maker would advertise the fact that it
was selling a version of Windows without Internet access. Short
said his concern was that most PC customers would not understand
the explanation.
When asked if he was against giving customers such choice, Short
answered that there should be choice, but that under the states'
remedy customers would be unable to buy the same wide range of
software and devices that work with Windows today.
One of the remedies proposed by the states suing Microsoft would
force the company to allow PC vendors and other Windows licensees
to omit portions of the OS from the final product they deliver to
customers.
Microsoft also played for the court a videotape of excerpts of an
interview that Microsoft lawyers had conducted with Tom Greene,
California senior assistant attorney general, who is co-ordinating
the Microsoft case for the states. California is one of the states
pursuing litigation.
In the tape, Microsoft attorney Steven Holley asked Greene whether,
under the states' provisions, Microsoft would be forced to treat a
small PC company in the same way it treats Compaq, for example.
Greene answered that the status of the two companies would be the
same, but that Compaq would need more information from Microsoft
because it sells more PCs.
Holley asked whether Microsoft could deny the small company access
to the same information that it provides to Compaq under the
proposed remedy. Microsoft could not, Greene said.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is hearing proposed remedies to
Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour from both the company and
from nine states plus the District of Columbia. Last November the
US Department of Justice and nine other states reached a settlement
with Microsoft; the holdout states are seeking tougher restrictions
on the company's business practices.