University of Virginia professor Kenneth Elzinga admitted he had mischaracterized the states' proposals in his written testimony to U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly when he said the sanctions were "developed" by Microsoft's competitors.

Under questioning from states' attorney Steve Kuney, Elzinga acknowledged that many of the restrictions the states wanted to impose on Microsoft were actually proposed by the original trial judge.

"Perhaps 'supported' was a better word than 'developed,'" Elzinga conceded.

Microsoft has long maintained that competitors like Sun Microsystems and America Online are behind the 4-year-old landmark case.

Kuney cited portions of the break-up order handed down in 2000 by judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. In it, Jackson listed a series of interim restrictions on Microsoft designed to stay in effect until the company was split up.

Elzinga acknowledged that a number of the states' proposals were the same as those in Jackson's interim remedy--some completely identical. "The word 'developed' I will concede is an awkward one," he said.

A federal appeals court last June upheld Jackson's finding that Microsoft illegally maintained its Windows operating system monopoly through acts that included commingling its Internet Explorer code with Windows to fend off Netscape's rival Web browser.

But the appellate judges rejected Jackson's breakup order and sent the case back to a new judge, Kollar-Kotelly, to consider the most appropriate remedy.

Microsoft reached a proposed settlement of the case in November with the U.S. Justice Department and nine other states, but the non-settling states say the pact is too week to prevent future antitrust violations.

Elzinga also had to admit that a demand by the states for Microsoft to offer a version of Windows with removable features was the same as a proposal from Richard Posner, a Chicago appeals court judge appointed by Jackson in 1999 to try to mediate a settlement.

"Is Judge Posner someone you consider subject to undue influence by Microsoft's competitors?" Kuney asked. "No," Elzinga replied.

But the University of Virginia economics professor battled back, insisting that competitors were a factor in the case.

"There doesn't seem to be much doubt that competitors had a role in the states' remedies," Elzinga said. "If they didn't play any role, or try to play a role, they sure wasted a lot of money."

Now in their eighth week, the hearings on the states' proposal look likely to end next week. Kollar-Kotelly is also considering whether to endorse the proposed settlement.

Related Quotes

Quotes delayed 20+ minutes

	AOL TIME WARNER INC	AOL	17.82	-0.54
	MICROSOFT CORP	MSFT	52.22	-2.75
	SUN MICROSYSTEMS	SUNW	6.70	-0.19

Quote Lookup:   Symbol Lookup

Also from CNET Networks
• Builder.com: Perl tips, understanding flow control
• The new Apple IPOD wins an April Editors’ Choice Award: 10gb is superior to 5
• NetWorld+Interop: ZDNet brings the show to your desk
• Get your graduate the latest in digital music players. CDs and DVDs burners are it
• Pocket sized multimedia machines ---music, movies and games in 4 powerful PDAs