WASHINGTON -- The Microsoft antitrust trial continued Wednesday with the US Justice Department's variation on the usual theme: That Redmond did its level best to keep customers from learning other Web browsers even existed.
A government lawyer explained to District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson that Microsoft required its Internet service provider partners to hawk Internet Explorer almost exclusively -- and not tell their subscribers about Netscape products.
The company needed to use these aggressive tactics, said Cameron Myhrvold, a vice president in Microsoft's Internet customer unit, during cross-examination.
"We were nowhere. We were the Johnny-come-lately to the Internet," said Myhrvold. Giving ISPs a place on Microsoft's referral service was a way for the company to catch up to Netscape, the undisputed king of the hill at the time.
That's just another example of Microsoft denying consumers choice, said David Boies, a lawyer representing the Justice Department. "If ISPs offered consumers a choice between Navigator and Internet Explorer, customers would choose Navigator."
Boies noted that Myhrvold said last April that the "ISP channel and the OEM channel are the two most important channels" for browser distribution.
"Did you believe that at the time?" Boies asked.
"Yes, I did," Myhrvold replied.
Boies also highlighted a January 1998 document that Myhrvold had prepared. The mid-year presentation to management said the company was making "good progress on browser share and distribution," including 82 percent IE distribution by the top eight online services and ISPs.
Asking about the details of Microsoft's contracts with ISPs, Boies wondered why Myhrvold said in his written testimony that partners were "never required to distribute" Internet Explorer.
"They were not locked in," Myhrvold replied. He said that if they fell behind certain goals Microsoft set for each company, Microsoft had the right to remove them from its referral server.
The target percentages for Sprint and Netcom were 50 percent, and the others were 75 percent. Microsoft said it never exercised that option even though ISPs weren't meeting their targets.
"I believe that Concentric did not. I think it's possible Earthlink did not," Myhrvold said. He said that if they weren't meeting the target, Microsoft would phone them or visit them to lend technical assistance or train support staff.
At one point, Microsoft's lawyers seemed to have a bit of a scare.
Myhrvold said key statistics were in a company document, but he couldn't find it in a binder Microsoft prepared. He reassured Boies that it must have been turned over to the government during pre-trial discovery.
"What makes you so sure it was produced to the government?" Boies shot back, echoing a habitual complaint that Microsoft has not been as forthcoming as it could be.
During a mid-morning recess, the Justice Department found that the document -- a spreadsheet showing IE shipments -- had been in their paperwork.
Myhrvold declined to comment on online service contracts, saying he had not reviewed them in preparation for his testimony and that Microsoft's next witness was the expert on the topic.
Also on Wednesday, Microsoft released the written direct testimony of Brad Chase, who is expected to take the stand later this week. His testimony says America Online chose Microsoft because the technology was better, and not because of Microsoft's market power.
