Microsoft Corp dismissed the written testimony of expert witness David Farber as nothing more than an opinion piece on how he thinks Microsoft should have designed Windows. Farber, professor of telecommunications at the University of Pennsylvania, testifies in court today, but his written testimony was released Monday night. In the testimony, Farber describes the modular nature of modern software methodologies which gives software developers broad freedom in combining (bundling) different functions into software products. Farber goes on to say that there are no technical efficiencies for users achieved by combining Microsoft’s browser software with the remainder of the software sold as Windows 98 that could not be achieved by writing two programs in a manner that could be loaded and integrated either by the retail end-user or by an OEM. If the court accepted Microsoft’s claims that it should be permitted to include any software it chooses within Windows 98, then Windows 98 could eventually end up as the one and only universal software product, and only Microsoft could develop software for Intel-based personal computers. Microsoft said that leaving OEMs to decide which components of Windows to deliver to customers would be a disaster for consumers and software developers alike. Maintaining the basic consistency of Windows is vitally important. And anyway, Microsoft said, Farber knows absolutely nothing about the internal workings of Windows 95 or Windows 98.
