Disputes over the legality of browser integration and terms of Internet service provider contracts will not be the only points of contention in Microsoft's antitrust trial.
The Department of Justice has entered depositions from a number of operating system vendors -- including Caldera, IBM, Lucent Technologies' Inferno business unit, Novell and The Santa Cruz Operation - as part of its pretrial statement.
Investigators quizzed officials from these vendors about Microsoft's strategy to integrate technologies into its desktop and server operating systems. The DOJ also wanted information on any impact those moves had on Microsoft's operating system competitors.
In addition, new depositions taken within the past couple of months from several leading hardware vendors, including Compaq Computer, Dell Computer, Gateway and Packard Bell-NEC, are likely to be key to the government's antitrust case.
Executives from these companies were subpoenaed in the fall of 1997 and were grilled about terms of their OEM contracts with Microsoft.
In the ensuing months, these OEMs have provided comments and testimony regarding Microsoft's first-boot requirements and Active Desktop and Internet Explorer requirements, among other topics.
Testimony from Boeing executive Scott Vesey, regarding how Boeing chose Internet Explorer as its corporate browser, also will figure in the government's case.
Vesey was slated to be one of the DOJ's 12 witnesses until a week ago, when he was bumped from the list in favor of officials from Apple Computer and Sun Microsystems.
Some industry watchers say the fact that the DOJ is launching a multi-pronged attack will give the DOJ a better chance of proving its contention that Microsoft is violating Sherman Act antitrust provisions.
DOJ attack: Broader is better
U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled recently that he would consider introduction of evidenceinvolving alleged antitrust violations by Microsoft in the areas of Java, Apple's QuickTime and RealNetwork's streaming media technology on a case-by-case basis once the trial began.
But others -- even those who say they believe the DOJ has a valid case -- say they don't have much confidence in the government's strategy.
"Justice is feeling around in a lot of different areas. It seems like they're shooting in the dark a bit," said an official with one OEM, who requested anonymity. "The DOJ doesn't have enough resources in place to stay close enough to these issues to truly understand them. I just don't think the good guys can win this one."
Depositions and exhibits involving Microsoft's well-established adversaries are part of the DOJ's pretrial statement, to no one's surprise. Depositions and other documentation involving officials representing Apple, Intel, Netscape Communications, Oracle's NCI subsidiary, RealNetworks and Sun are all elements of the DOJ's case.
OS integration a hot topic
Testimony from Sun officials who were deposed on July 14 about operating system integration is part of the government's pretrial statement, for example.
The gist of the questioning centered on how companies decide what to put in their operating systems -- browsers, Internet functionality, TCP/IP -- and whether Microsoft was bundling things other companies may have considered, a Sun spokeswoman acknowledged.
Bristol Technology CEO and President Keith Blackwell's Sept. 16 deposition also is one of the exhibits to which the DOJ refers in its pretrial statement.
"The DOJ subpoenaed me, and Microsoft questioned me," says Blackwell. "There's a protective order covering parts of my deposition. But I can say generally that we were asking about our work with Microsoft on a port of Internet Explorer to Unix. They asked why Microsoft was doing this [port] and also about why they brought the work in-house."
Other vendors were questioned in more detail by attorneys representing both the DOJ and Microsoft about their operating system integration strategy.
Some of these vendors testified at the request of Microsoft, which issued subpoenas to a number of operating system vendors this past summer. Microsoft was seeking to prove its contention that all server operating system vendors are integrating previously independently packaged technologies into their core OS offerings.
Building a bigger case?
"We were subpoenaed by Microsoft and then by the DOJ. The questions we were asked were around how we define 'Internet technology,' 'bundled' and 'integrated,' " says Ron Rasmussen, vice president of SCO's server products group, who was deposed by the DOJ and New York state attorney general's office on July 10. "We have a much broader definition of 'Internet technologies' than Microsoft does, and we think the idea of any one company controlling this is very bad for the industry."
Rasmussen says that he also was questioned about Microsoft's timing around its decisions to integrate new technologies into NT Server. "They asked about when Microsoft integrated IIS [Internet Information Server] and what we did in response," Rasmussen says.
Server operating system integration has been a hot button for a number of months. In June, the Software Publishers Association published a report that detailed Microsoft's alleged attempts to monopolize the server market by integrating more and more features into the base platform.
In return, Microsoft released its own study which cited customer and developer demand for increased server operating system integration.
Additional reporting by Deborah Gage, Sm@rt Reseller
