The remedy phase of the Microsoft antitrust trial yesterday
(Monday) continued to focus on media players made by the software
giant's rival and whether these applications are facing a fate
similar to that of Netscape Navigator.
Navigator's adoption, particularly among corporate enterprises,
suffered when Microsoft's Internet Explorer became an inseparable
part of its operating system.
The non-settling states pursuing tougher remedies want Microsoft to
make its media player code removable from the operating system,
allowing PC makers to substitute rival products.
In court, states' attorney John Schmidtlein attempted to show that
Microsoft was increasing the dependency of its media player on the
operating system, even after the US District Court of Appeals two
years ago faulted the company for "commingling" browser code with
the operating system.
Will Poole, a Microsoft vice-president responsible for the Windows
New Media Platforms Division, which builds media player for the
operating system, returned to the stand to defend his company's
actions.
Poole and Schmidtlein sparred over whether PC makers would install
rival media players if they were not forced to take Microsoft's
Windows Media Player.
"I believe our competitors will pay them [PC makers] not to carry
it, Poole said. "They will weigh benefits between the payment they
receive and the value they take out of the system."
At one point, he added: "I know of no good reason why they would
take that technology out."
If Microsoft were forced to allow PC makers to add and subtract its
media player code, Microsoft "would have to compete harder and
innovate harder", Schmidtlein said.
Poole, however, said that if Microsoft's media player software code
were removed the operating system would not support many rival
media players.
Schmidtlein's line of questioning faced problems, particularly in
regard to Windows XP Embedded, a version of the operating system
used in devices such as cash registers that allows users to add and
subtract "middleware" such as media players. The states are using
XP Embedded to demonstrate that Microsoft can separate applications
from its operating system.
Schmidtlein at one point asked Poole to give his best educated
guess on an aspect of the embedded system's operation. Microsoft's
attorney objected to a speculative answer and Judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly agreed.
On the issue of commingling or codependency of code, Poole
acknowledged under questioning that the codependency of its media
player with the operating system was increasing, but he added that
system design was being affected by the antitrust case. "We have
certainly done our best to forecast where things might go," said
Poole, referring to the antitrust case.
Linda Wolfe Averett, a unit product manager for Windows Media
Player, followed Poole on the witness stand. Her testimony is
intended to rebut Dave Richards, RealNetworks' vice-president of
consumer systems, who testified as a witness for the nine
non-settling states and the District of Columbia.
Richards had said in court that Microsoft's software licensing
terms are "severe and onerous", and that they have harmed his
company.
The non-settling states have refused to sign a Bush
administration-backed settlement in the case. The judge is
considering their remedies, which include forcing Microsoft to
produce a stripped-down version of its operating system, carry
Java, allow the porting of Office to other operating systems, and
provide developers with access to the Windows source code.
Microsoft has three more witnesses to call: Jim Allchin, its group
vice-president for the platforms division; Kenneth Elzinga,
professor of economics at the University of Virginia, and John
Bennett, a computing science professor at the University of
Colorado.
Both sides are also expected to call rebuttal witnesses. The remedy
phase could finish in two weeks' time.