In an odd bit of symmetry, the first half of the Microsoft antitrust trial is coming to an end the way the second half will begin: with an MIT economist on the witness stand. On Thursday, Jan. 7, the software company wound up its cross-examination of the government's last witness, Franklin M. Fisher. When Microsoft begins presenting its witnesses during the trial's final phase, it'll start off with MIT's Richard Schmalensee.

Schmalensee may hope for a less stressful time on the stand. Microsoft's youthful counselor, Michael Lacovara, continually challenged Fisher, a gray-haired professor, about his knowledge of technology in some mildly testy exchanges. But the questioning broke little new ground, as Lacovara sought primarily to revisit themes aired earlier by other witnesses.

The avuncular Fisher refused to acknowledge the efficiencies that might result from integrating Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser with the Windows operating system, insisting that PC makers prefer to offer a choice of browsers to consumers. "If Henry Ford were running a monopoly, we'd all be driving black cars," he said. "If we're going to live in a Microsoft world, it may be a nice world -- but it's not a competitive world," he continued heatedly.

Lacovara, in an unspoken reference to the professor's age, then asked whether they should take a break or continue. Fisher opted to continue, assuring Lacovara that his "blood pressure doesn't rise during this" kind of questioning.

HOW GENEROUS? Lacovara also pressed Fisher to accept rational business reasons why Microsoft would want to give away its browser with Windows to increase demand for its operating system. The lawyer pointed out that other software companies often distribute programs free to increase demand for their core products. But Fisher pointed out that Microsoft didn't have to give away its own browser to increase demand for Windows but could have given away another company's browser.

Likewise, with helpful prompts from Justice Dept. lead attorney David Boies, Fisher questioned the motivation of internal Microsoft E-mail exchanges in which top executives expressed a desire for Java not to run well on Windows. "The better things run on Windows, the more attractive Windows is to users," said Fisher, explaining another rational business view. But then again, he opined, perhaps Microsoft knew that Java's success could depend on its ability to run smoothly on the ubiquitous Windows operating software.

The government is expected to formally end the presentation of its case on Monday, Jan. 11, as it completes its re-direct questioning of Fisher. The court may then move to a closed session to explore Microsoft's pricing of products for PC makers. Microsoft will then turn to its MIT economist, Schmalensee, to start its defense soon after.

By Catherine Yang in Washington