|
Windows/IE takes stage
|
 |
November 13, 1998: 6:20 p.m. ET
Fed witness Weadock says browser bundle offers no customer benefit
|
NEW YORK (CNNfn) - When the government's antitrust trial against Microsoft Corp. begins its fifth week Monday, defense lawyers will attempt to pick apart a witness' testimony that the software giant's bundling of products restricts competition and provides little benefit to consumers.
Much of the case rests with the issue of Microsoft integrating its Internet Explorer (IE) Web browser with the Windows operating system.
In his written direct testimony, which the Justice Department released Friday, Glenn Weadock, president of computer consulting firm Independent Software Inc., said Microsoft's Windows/IE integration doesn't necessarily deliver benefits to the customer.
The government claims the Windows/IE bundle amounts to unfair competition because Microsoft is giving away a separate product within its dominant computer-operating system. In particular, the Justice Department has said Microsoft's actions have harmed Netscape Communications Corp. (NSCP), which has seen the once-dominant market share of its Navigator product plunge after Microsoft integrated IE into Windows.
(In response to Microsoft's move, Netscape began giving away Navigator for free in January.)
The government has long wanted Microsoft to remove the browser from Windows. Microsoft, on the other hand, maintains that IE is an integral part of Windows and cannot be removed without causing irreparable harm to the operating system.
In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals struck down an order for a preliminary injunction to prevent Microsoft from forcing PC makers to include Internet Explorer in Windows 95. The court's majority concluded in its opinion that "the Windows 95/IE package is a genuine integration."
In his testimony, however, Weadock said the fact that application code (the building blocks of software) may coexist with operating system code doesn't imply that the application can't be removed.
"An operating-system vendor can mitigate at least some of the potential disadvantages of integration by providing customers the option of uninstalling the integrated application (or by offering non-integrated options to begin with)," Weadock said.
"The commingling of application and operating system code does not preclude the developer of the product from providing customers the ability to remove a bundled application."
Microsoft has also contended that the Windows/IE bundle offers benefits to consumers.
Weadock disputed that claim, however, pointing out that a separate application bundled into the operating system increases the likelihood that an application failure would affect the operating system because of the shared code.
Weadock also noted that bundling products also increases the likelihood of incompatibilities with other applications. Several companies, including Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL) and RealNetworks Inc. (RNWK) have complained that some of their products don't work properly under Windows.
Throughout the trial, Microsoft lawyers have asked witnesses to give their definition of what constitutes a browser, application and operating system, attempting to establish that there is no strict delineation between a browser and an operating system.
The government and its witnesses, however, have tried to establish that IE was originally intended as a separate product.
In his testimony, Weadock maintained that "organizations continue to view Internet Explorer and Windows as distinct
products -- one an application, the other an operating system."
The Justice Department and 20 states filed suit against Microsoft last May accusing the software giant of leveraging its dominance over operating systems into the browser market.
Microsoft (MSFT) shares closed at 110, up 1-1/4 in Friday trading. 
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
