Live witness testimony began Jan. 4 in the Iowa antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. with the plaintiffs calling Ronald Alepin, a veteran of the computer software industry, to the stand.

Alepin has 35 years of experience as a software developer, programmer, marketing manager and expert witness on issues involving technology. He assisted the federal government with its investigation of Microsoft in the 1990s. He also assisted Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and several other state attorneys general with their lawsuit against Microsoft. Alepin gave a presentation before the European Union Court of First Instance in connection with Microsoft’s appeal of the Commission’s finding that Microsoft violated EU competition law.

Rick Hagstrom, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said Alepin would describe for the jury the tactics used by Microsoft to thwart and crush competitors. He is expected to testify to Microsoft’s use of anticompetitive tactics such as vaporware, non-disclosure of critical technical interfaces for Windows and other tactics to run smaller software companies out of business. Hagstrom said he would describe how Microsoft continues to harm competition even after the federal case was settled.

“He is very good at explaining very technical, complicated information in a way that someone without extensive background in the field can understand,” Hagstrom said.

Alepin was also expected to testify about what could have happened in the development of software had Microsoft not engaged in allegedly anticompetitive conduct, but Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg could not offer his opinions on what could have been.

Rosenberg also said Alepin could not speak to legal matters, only the technical aspect of the case.

This week, the plaintiffs are expecting to call John Constant, the former product manager for Digital Research Inc. who designed and developed an operating system intended to compete with Microsoft’s. Constant will compare the two companies’ products and describe the tactics Microsoft supposedly used to drive DRI out of the market. Constant is expected to testify through the end of the week.

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 that bought computers with Microsoft software already installed or that 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. The lawyers are also seeking compensation for the time people have had to spend repairing security breaches – a figure that they put at a minimum of $50 million.

Microsoft denies that consumers were injured and said that computer users have benefited from the company’s efforts to improve its products.

Since the U.S. government won a 2000 antitrust decision against Microsoft, the company has fought a rash of more than 200 antitrust class-action lawsuits throughout the U.S., starting with a California suit. All but two, this case and another in Mississippi brought by that state’s attorney general, have reached settlements. In most states, the settlement dictated that consumers who purchased Microsoft software in the past are eligible for vouchers for modest refunds when they buy new computer hardware or software.

And even when the case is decided, either by a jury or a settlement, it will ultimately be up to those affected by decision to take it upon themselves to apply for damages. Hagstrom said when the similar case he was involved with in Minnesota settled, 36 percent of those eligible to receive vouchers applied, the highest claim rate in the country. One estimate suggested about 5 percent of those eligible in the California lawsuit against Microsoft applied, and those consumers only began receiving their vouchers this past August – three and half years after that case was settled.

The trial is expected to last six months.

“We know this is going to be a long trial,” Hagstrom said. “It’s a marathon, not a sprint.”