3 ms·

I've watched almost 2 hours of the deposition videos now, and I think Gates went far beyond trying to seek extreme clarity. The diversion in part 4 about docume

I've watched almost 2 hours of the deposition videos now, and I think Gates went far beyond trying to seek extreme clarity. The diversion in part 4 about document stamps is a case in point. It is an adversarial process, so you must not rely on the usual expectation that colleagues will take the charitable interpretation of your words, but Gates being unable to even possibly understand what his own emails mean, is evasive to the point of raising suspicion.

_-___________-_ 6y ago
"Raising suspicion" isn't really a concern in this context. And of course he understands what his own emails mean. Seeking extreme clarity when discussing them is not the same as not understanding them.
- dundarious 6y ago
  We seem to disagree about the seeking extreme clarity issue -- I believe he was intentionally obfuscating, or at least have that suspicion. As for suspicion, from the article: --- At one point, Thomas Penfield Jackson, the judge hearing the case, chuckled, too. When Microsoft lawyers argued during a closed-door session that the deposition was turning into a side show and government lawyers should be barred from showing any more segments during the trial, the judge denied the motion, saying: "If anything, I think your problem is with your witness, not with the way in which his testimony is being presented." Jackson continued: "I think it's evident to every spectator that, for whatever reasons, in many respects Mr. Gates has not been particularly responsive to his deposition interrogation. Everybody at your table has reflected skepticism as the testimony is presented." --- I'm characterizing the "whatever reasons" as suspicions. I suspect the judges did come to a conclusion on those reasons when it came time to deliver their opinion, and those reasons were damaging.

3 ms·

I've watched almost 2 hours of the deposition videos now, and I think Gates went far beyond trying to seek extreme clarity. The diversion in part 4 about docume

by dundarious 6y ago

_-___________-_ 6y ago
"Raising suspicion" isn't really a concern in this context. And of course he understands what his own emails mean. Seeking extreme clarity when discussing them is not the same as not understanding them.
- dundarious 6y ago
  We seem to disagree about the seeking extreme clarity issue -- I believe he was intentionally obfuscating, or at least have that suspicion. As for suspicion, from the article: --- At one point, Thomas Penfield Jackson, the judge hearing the case, chuckled, too. When Microsoft lawyers argued during a closed-door session that the deposition was turning into a side show and government lawyers should be barred from showing any more segments during the trial, the judge denied the motion, saying: "If anything, I think your problem is with your witness, not with the way in which his testimony is being presented." Jackson continued: "I think it's evident to every spectator that, for whatever reasons, in many respects Mr. Gates has not been particularly responsive to his deposition interrogation. Everybody at your table has reflected skepticism as the testimony is presented." --- I'm characterizing the "whatever reasons" as suspicions. I suspect the judges did come to a conclusion on those reasons when it came time to deliver their opinion, and those reasons were damaging.