Jones told U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that Windows was a highly complex array of interdependent blocks of computer code that could not be pulled apart and put back together in just any combination.

"Consumers would be confused and frustrated if products marketed as Windows operating systems were incapable of running Windows applications because blocks of software code relied on by those applications had been removed," he said in written testimony.

"Such consumer dissatisfaction would be a direct result of the fragmentation of the Windows platform and would cause sales of new personal computers to decline," he said.

But Jones conceded during questioning that some of Windows interlocking code benefits Microsoft commercially and does not have a clear technical reason to be commingled.

Jones was Microsoft's eighth witness at hearings to consider the demands of the nine states who have declined to sign a proposed settlement reached between Microsoft and the U.S. Justice Department in November.

The states' demand for a version of Windows with removable features, like the Internet browser and media player, is a key part of their proposals aimed at leveling the playing field for Microsoft competitors.

The nine states still pursuing the case are California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia, plus the District of Columbia.

The proposed settlement is designed to give computer makers more freedom to feature rival software on the PCs they sell by, among other things, hiding some Windows add-on features.

States' lawyer Kevin Hodges quizzed Jones about this portion of the settlement.

Hodges asked why manufacturers wanting to remove the icon for a version of Internet Explorer that works best with Microsoft's MSN Internet service, also have to turn off the regular version of the widely used Internet Explorer.

The states' attorney charged that it was to make computer makers less likely to turn off the MSN version.

"There may be things like that," Jones replied.

The non-settling states say stronger measures are necessary to prevent Microsoft from abusing its Windows monopoly in the future, particularly against recent computer technologies like handheld devices and interactive television.

A federal appeals court in June upheld trial court findings that Microsoft illegally maintained its Windows monopoly in personal computer operating systems with tactics that included trying to crush Netscape's Internet browser.

The appellate judges rejected breaking up the company and sent the case back to the lower court to consider appropriate remedies to prevent future antitrust violations.

The hearings on possible remedies in the case are now in their sixth week and are expected to go through May.

Kollar-Kotelly is also weighing whether to endorse the settlement proposal.

Source: Reuters