Would Dismantling Windows Hurt Anyone?

WASHINGTON--Microsoft's Passport authentication system again became the topic of testimony at the antitrust remedy hearing Thursday, as a Microsoft executive attempted to clarify what he said were mischaracterizations of the program made by earlier witnesses.

Earlier in the day, Microsoft weathered accusations that it tries to strong-arm software developers into using its .Net platform for Web services. The testimony came in cross-examination of an Autodesk executive. He contended that a push for .Net was behind Microsoft dropping support for Sun's Java programming language.

Such comments from witnesses has become familiar, as Microsoft's own witnesses are subjected to pointed cross-examination by attorneys for nine states and District of Columbia. The holdout states have decided to pursue remedies tougher than the U.S. Department of Justice and the other nine states that originally were plaintiffs in the antitrust case.

Passport Debated

Microsoft witness David Cole, senior vice president of the MSN and Personal Services Group, said in his written direct testimony that two witnesses for the states suing Microsoft depicted the company as trapping users into signing up for the Passport service, a part of Microsoft's grander .Net platform for Web services. Passport lets users create a single sign-on to access Passport-enabled sites without having to re-enter the information.

In particular, Cole took issue with statements made by John Borthwick, vice president of America Online's advanced services at AOL Time Warner. Borthwick said during his early April testimony that Passport was a "critical bridge" to Microsoft's .Net services, implying that users would need Passport accounts to access Microsoft's host of current and future Web services.

Cole called that an inaccurate characterization of Passport, describing it instead as an "enabler" of Microsoft's Web services. "It is misleading to assert, as Mr. Borthwick did ... that Passport 'serves primarily as a virtual tollgate into Microsoft's .Net services'," Cole wrote, adding it " does not require [customers] to use any Microsoft software."

States' attorney John Schmidtlein then set out to show that Passport is, in fact, closely tied to other Microsoft Web services, and that users often end up subscribing to the authentication system without intending to.

When questioning Cole, Schmidtlein established that users of both Microsoft's 160 million-member Hotmail service and MSN Messenger instant messaging service, which boasts more than 40 million users, also must sign up for Passport.

Cole had said users can create a Passport account by simply entering a user name and password. However, the states' lawyer showed the majority of Passport users actually had to give Microsoft additional personal information. Schmidtlein showed a copy of the Hotmail sign-up form, where users must provide information such as full name, state, gender, and date of birth to obtain a Hotmail account.

Cole explained Microsoft asks this information so it can target ads and newsletter offers on the Hotmail site. His cross examination will continue on Monday.

Java Curve Ball

Earlier, Scott Borduin, Autodesk's vice president and chief technology officer, testified for Microsoft. He told states attorney Kevin Hodges that some at Autodesk were troubled to learn Microsoft planned to drop support for Java, since some Autodesk products depend on Java's presence in the operating system.

The attorney showed the court an e-mail Borduin sent to his Microsoft contact last August, after learning Microsoft's plans. Borduin wrote, "Our wholehearted support of Microsoft is grossly misplaced. This is a company that will screw anybody at the drop of a hat."

Hodges asked if Borduin believed Microsoft dropped Java support to force developers to instead use its competing .Net technology. "I didn't actually know at the time what their intent was, but that's what it looked like," Borduin answered.

But Borduin also testified that the states' proposed remedies would fragment Windows. "We view Windows . . . as a platform that enables us to build new products and services," he said. Software developers could no longer assume Windows is complete if Microsoft was forced to sell an 'unbound' version of the OS, he said.

Hodges asked him whether Windows hasn't been fragmented for a while, trying to show that software developers already deal with multiple versions of Windows. Borduin agreed, but said this isn't a burden to Autodesk because most of its customers use the professional version of XP.

Hassles for Vendors?

Later, Microsoft attorney Michael Lacovara asserted that software developers would bear a burden if forced to also distribute functions currently included in Windows. "Does Autodesk like to distribute platform-level code?" Lacovara asked. "We do not," Borduin answered, adding that software vendors would have to do so under the states' proposed remedies.

Microsoft's next witness gave a demonstration designed to show how Windows facilitates development of applications for the disabled. Chris Hofstader, vice president of software engineering for Freedom Scientific, which develops software for blind and low-vision users, showed the court applications that let a blind user create documents, read Web pages, and send and receive e-mail in Windows.

In his written direct testimony, Hofstader said that if Microsoft were forced to strip out some functions from Windows, Freedom Scientific's software wouldn't function properly.