Sanders said in his written testimony that if the litigating states were to impose remedies that fragmented the Windows operating system, it would diminish overall competition and cause harm to the PC industry and to consumers.
But the lawyer for the states suing Microsoft attempted to show that the witness agreed to testify on Microsoft's behalf in exchange for the software giant's support of AMD's upcoming "hammer" product.
Kevin Murphy, a Microsoft expert witness and professor of economics and industrial relations at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business, told the court that the goal of the remedies imposed on Microsoft should be to promote consumer welfare, but should also be restricted to behaviour already found anticompetitive by the Court of Appeals.
"Remedies should be designed to enjoin the types of acts found anticompetitive -- that is, to specify the boundaries of legal and illegal conduct," Murphy said in his written direct testimony. "Remedies should avoid dealing with issues unrelated to the acts found to be anticompetitive."