MIT professor Franklin Fisher was in court yesterday, under examination and pressure from Microsoft's lawyer, Michael Lacovara.
Fisher has argued that Microsoft's conduct has been harmful to consumers by limiting choice and innovation, but Lacovara argued that Fischer's motives for testifying were not so altruistic.
He said Fisher, and the firm of which he is chairman, Charles River Associates, would benefit from Microsoft losing the case since Charles River Associates acts as consultant to companies looking at taking legal action against Microsoft.
A prosecution government spokesman derided the attack and said Lacovara was grasping at straws by trying to discredit the witness.
Attempting to establish that Microsoft is not a monopolist and subject to competitive threats and alliances, internal AOL documents put into evidence by Microsoft's lawyers which suggested that AOL was considering how, "browsers could supplant Windows as the PC users' primary online environment."
AOL's chief has stated on several occasions that he does not intend to compete directly with Microsoft, but additional documents exhibited in the Washington court referred to an AOL PC that would not use Microsoft software.
Judge Jackson suggested the documents were irrelevant and at this stage of events, "wishful thinking".
To comment on this story email [email protected]
A smartphone maker fiddling its benchmarking scores? That's unusual, isn't it?
'We are making good progress on 10nm,' claims Intel
Engineer calculates that Chengdu's plan to replace streetlights with artificial moonlight would cost $100bn
Research could also apply to other 'space weather' events involving hot, fast-moving plasma