Before he took the stand, Intuit Inc. President and Chief Executive William Harris seemed to be a loaded gun, aimed squarely at Microsoft. In his prepared testimony, released before the trial resumed on Jan. 4, Harris had called for the breakup of Microsoft to restore healthy competition in the industry.

On his second day in the witness box, however, he proved nonlethal. To Microsoft's relief, Harris testified that his company's technical recommendation was to opt for Microsoft's browser instead of one offered by long-time partner Netscape. He did give the government some ammo -- by conceding that Microsoft had prevented Intuit from using both Microsoft and Netscape browsers, the deal Intuit originally sought. Intuit agreed to drop Netscape because that was one of Microsoft's nonnegotiable conditions in return for giving Intuit a preferential position on Microsoft's Windows desktop display. "What we were looking for was prominence," Harris said.

Outside the courthouse, a Microsoft spokesman focused on Harris' admission that Intuit chose Microsoft's Internet Explorer because it was technically superior. He added that the exclusive arrangement Microsoft demanded was a standard cross-promotion agreement. Microsoft won out because of its product, not pressure, he suggested.

Harris and the government's lead attorney, David Boies, strongly disagreed. Intuit's boss said the Microsoft deal was not a typical promotional accord. Boies noted that if Microsoft had wanted Intuit to drop Netscape in return for Explorer, it would be like Coke insisting on exclusivity from McDonald's -- though the fact that Coke isn't a monopolist makes all the difference. But that's not what happened. Instead, Intuit had to boycott Netscape not just to get Explorer but to also get a position on the desktop. Only a monopolist could exact such a price on a different product, Boies says.

NOT JUST SOUR GRAPES. The government also was bouyed by the fact that Harris is a witness whose testimony couldn't be dismissed as sour grapes. Intuit was not a Microsoft victim that had failed in the marketplace. Instead, its Quicken has kept the lead in personal-finance software despite direct competition from Microsoft's Money program.

However, Harris did little to bolster the goverment's contention that Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was directly involved in his company's hardball tactics. The government played a tape of Gates saying he didn't remember any involvement in the negotiations with Intuit. Harris said he never talked to Gates about the conditions and was told by Microsoft officials only that Gates insisted on these terms. But these were the same terms that Gates wanted for all "platinum" partners -- those who got special placement on the opening screen of Windows -- not just Intuit.

The government never made a direct link between Gates and the Intuit negotiations, but Boies insisted that's not important. Whatever Gates's role, there's no doubt the company demanded such terms, Boies says. Under intense political pressure, Microsoft company ultimately dropped the exclusivity condition.

In the afternoon, the government called its final witness, MIT economics professor Franklin M. Fisher. Microsoft opened its cross-examination by challenging his credentials to discuss the software market, and it will continue its questioning of Fisher on Wednesday, Jan. 6. Microsoft also revealed that it has made an agreement with the government to close a portion of the trial dealing with computer makers' proprietary information. Media lawyers are expected to contest the move.

By Stan Crock in Washington