Microsoft Remedy Trial Spotlights Integration

In federal court here last week, Microsoft presented witnesses, including Advanced Micro Devices co-founder Jerry Sanders and University of Chicago economist Kevin Murphy, to testify against proposed sanctions that would exceed its settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice last fall. Nine states and the District of Columbia oppose the DOJ settlement in favor of tougher remedies, including stripped-down or modular versions of Microsoft's Windows operating system.

Microsoft has argued that a remedy calling for modular Windows offerings would create confusion in the marketplace because the company and its partners would have to support thousands of Windows versions. Several solution providers last week said it's unclear if stripping down Windows would be a practical remedy.

"If the goal is to confuse consumers, having multiple versions of Windows will succeed," said Ken Winell, president and CEO of Econium, Totowa, N.J.

Yet Steve Pazol, president of Professional Consulting Services, Chicago, called Microsoft's complaint about supporting multiple Windows versions "a red herring," and said Microsoft could charge customers separately for its Internet Explorer browser and other applications. "Depending on the integration of the browser and OS, they should be able to treat [Windows like any other application," Pazol said.

Microsoft already permits OEMs to remove the Internet Explorer, MSN and other icons from the Windows desktop. But legal experts say more changes like those could be coming.

"Microsoft may suffer an order requiring at least some applications to be removable, but not ordering [all those applications to be removed," said Hillard Sterling, a partner at Gordon and Glickson, a Chicago law firm. "But it doesn't want an affirmative duty to strip down Windows and forgo product integration."