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.

Zittrain also accused Microsoft of creating a more feature-rich Java virtual machine--an application which runs programs written in Sun Microsystem's Java language--simply to render it incompatible with Java virtual machines running on other platforms, thus prompting the poisoned coffee reference.

He said this was an attempt to force programmers to continue developing only for the Microsoft Windows environment.

He said Microsoft unfairly ensured that its Internet Explorer, which includes the Java virtual machine, became the Java standard by offering a discount to computer manufacturers that installed only Internet Explorer and thus left out Netscape Navigator, the browser's main competitor.

"Not because of innovation, not because of smarter programmers, [but] because of monopoly powers Microsoft [attempted] to stave off a potential threat to their monopoly," he said.

Scherer contested the validity of Zittrain's argument that Microsoft violated anti-trust laws.

"I think the government's case is very weak on all three counts," he said. "You can go out and buy a Macintosh if you want."

Scherer also said that numerous other alternative operating systems are available, including Linux, a free Unix-like operating system that is used by millions and considered technologically superior in some aspects.

Microsoft is in a sense its own worst competitor, Scherer said, as millions of copies of old Windows versions are installed on computers.

"Microsoft is limited in what it can do by both competing firms and the software packages people already possess," he said.

According to Scherer, the main impetus for the anti-trust case was the bundling of Internet Explorer with the Windows 98 operating system.

But he said that Microsoft's reason for bundling Internet Explorer was valid, likening it to an essential part of Windows just as windshield wipers are an essential part of an automobile.

"It runs more flawlessly. It is easier to install," Scherer said.

He also stated that companies in many other fields have very similar practices.

"Car manufacturers bundle all sorts of things with their cars," he said, citing engines, air conditioning and tires.

"Anti-trust is not about protecting individual firms from the hard wins of competition. Anti-trust is about protecting consumers," Scherer said.

He said that the functionality of Windows has increased substantially over time. Many years ago, DOS 2.1, containing 3,000 lines of code, cost $150. Today, Windows 98 contains about 20 million lines of code and costs about $70.

"The consumer has benefited from all this," he said.

He denied that consumer choice has been stifled, noting that he had no difficulty downloading and using Netscape Navigator, an alternate Web browser.

Audience members asked questions after Zittrain and Scherer presented their arguments.

The discussion was a part of the Institute of Politics' "Current Events 101" series, coordinated by M Beth Kytle '02.