The floor was finally turned over to Microsoft attorneys last week to begin their opening arguments in the Iowa antitrust case against the software company, following a lengthy presentation by Roxanne Conlin, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

The opening statement by Microsoft’s lead attorney, David Tulchin, marked the first preview for the jury of Microsoft’s legal defense since the trial began in mid-November.

“The real issues are not complicated,” Tulchin told the jurors. “The real issues will be clear.”

Tulchin said the average price of Microsoft Windows operating system software pre-installed has remained at about $50 during the past decade. He also pointed out that the average price paid for all copies sold of Microsoft Word has dropped from $235 in 1988 to $38 in 2005, while the average price of all copies sold of Microsoft Excel has dropped during the same period to $36 from $249.

“We didn’t take a little sliver of data, where the only thing that’s being reported are the highest possible prices such as the retail channel,” Tulchin told the jury, explaining the difference from prices provided earlier by the plaintiffs. “This is all data.”

Tulchin also discussed the founding of Microsoft and the company’s progress from its start in the garage to its position today.

In her opening argument, Conlin painted a picture of a company that harmed Iowa consumers by destroying competition, telling the stories of nine companies that were allegedly victims of Microsoft’s business practices. Conlin presented many e-mails and internal memos to illustrate her case, one of which showed a Microsoft senior executive, Jim Allchin, saying in an e-mail to company Chairman Bill Gates and CEO Steve Ballmer that Microsoft had lost it way and that he would buy an Apple MacIntosh if he didn’t work for Microsoft.

Conlin took six days to introduce her case to the seven men and five women on the jury. Microsoft indicated that it would also take several days to present its case. Opening statements usually are brief preludes to the case and summarize what the attorney believes will be proven by the evidence. In a case of this depth, six days doesn’t seem totally out of the question, said Brett Trout, a local patent attorney who has been following the case.

“The plaintiffs are trying to tell a story that the jurors can relate to,” Trout said. “They want the jurors to see themselves as the plaintiffs.”

Rush Nigut, an attorney with Des Moines-based Sullivan & Ward P.C., said it is widely believed that people are used to getting information in short bursts from television, computers or other technology, and therefore their attention span as jurors is much shorter. With the long opening statements of this trial, he said, attorneys run the risk of “losing” the jury.

“It’s your opportunity to really lay your case out,” Nigut said. “A lot of jurors frame how they feel about the case from opening statements. So you don’t want to lose them that early, because it could affect the rest of the case.”

However, Nigut said many trial attorneys believe it is most persuasive to tell the entire story in detail – even if that means taking hours or days to complete an opening statement.

“There are two ways you can look at opening statements,” said Jay Eaton, a senior attorney at the Nyemaster, Goode, West, Hansell and O’Brien law firm in Des Moines. “You’re trying to tell the jury what you believe the evidence will show. Some attorneys choose a more summary approach, while others use a more comprehensive approach.”

The case was filed in 2000 and was certified in 2003 as a class-action suit on behalf of indirect buyers of Microsoft software from May 1994 to June 2006 – people and businesses who bought computers with Microsoft software already installed or bought the programs from sources other than the company.

The suit contends that Microsoft’s business practices resulted in overcharges to Iowa consumers totaling as much as $330 million.