WASHINGTON, May 11: A computer expert testifying for Microsoft Corp. conceded on Friday that it would be possible to remove features from the company’s Windows operating system even if technically difficult.

University of Colorado computer science professor John Bennett had testified on Thursday that a version of Windows with removable features was “technically infeasible.”

Questioned by an attorney for nine states seeking stiff antitrust sanctions against the software giant, Bennett said anything was possible with software.

It’s a question of the degree of difficulty and the amount of work that would be required, said Bennett, Microsoft’s last witness at the hearings, now in their eighth week.

The states say a modular version of Windows, allowing features like the Internet browser and media player to be removed, would help level the competitive playing field for non-Microsoft software.

But Microsoft has insisted that Windows is highly dependent on all its parts to work properly.

Under a proposed settlement reached with the US Justice Department in November, Microsoft would let computer makers hide desktop icons for some Windows features.

Bennett was the last of more than 30 witnesses who have testified before US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly during 32 days of hearings into the demands of the states.

The judge is also weighing whether to approve the proposed settlement that the nine dissenting states say is too weak to prevent future antitrust violations.

The states on Thursday canceled plans to demonstrate a modular version of Windows after it became clear they had annoyed the judge by introducing the material so late in the case that it would vastly lengthen the proceedings.

A federal appeals court last June upheld the original trial court’s finding that Microsoft illegally maintained its Windows monopoly through acts that included commingling its Internet Explorer code with Windows to fend off Netscape.

But the appellate judges rejected Jackson’s breakup order and sent the case back to a new judge, Kollar-Kotelly, to consider the most appropriate remedy.

Bennett had said in written testimony that the states’ proposal for a modular operating system would exponentially increase the cost of testing and supporting Windows.

States attorney Steve Kuney countered by suggesting Bennett was exaggerating the impact of the states’ proposals.

In particular, Kuney challenged Bennett’s claim that the states would force Microsoft to make almost every piece of Windows removable.—Reuters