Is Microsoft forcing corporations to serve poisoned coffee to their customers? And is Internet Explorer more comparable to a car's windshield wipers or its radio?

In a panel discussion last night interspersed with a plethora of sometimes-bizarre metaphors, Harvard Law School Lecturer Jonathan L. Zittrain and AETNA Professor of Public Policy Frederic Michael Scherer argued both sides of the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit.

At the Institute of Politics' "The Microsoft Case 101," Zittrain outlined the anti-Microsoft case for an audience that was generally convinced the software giant had participated in monopolistic practices, according to a poll taken at the start of the panel.

Zittrain described his version of Microsoft history, saying the corporation developed an operating system that attracted a large following, which in turn caused Microsoft to instate anti-competitive practices.

"The software writers all want to write software for the most popular platform," Zittrain said. "People want the platform with the most software."

According to Zittrain, Microsoft then engaged in "monopoly maintenance," so the company they could retain their overwhelming majority of the market share.

"If you are Compaq or Dell, you need Windows," Zittrain said. "You're going to buy it."

He said Microsoft unfairly took advantage of the existing popularity of its product by forcing computer manufacturers to leave the startup sequence unchanged and load Microsoft Internet Explorer on their computers.