4 ms·

>Microsoft antitrust trial was Gates' deposition testimony, which, when presented in court, made the judge laugh out loud I was in the courtroom when that happ

by declan 12y ago

>Microsoft antitrust trial was Gates' deposition testimony, which, when presented in court, made the judge laugh out loud I was in the courtroom when that happened, and you're right. My Wired article at the time said that "Gates gave narrow, evasive, and definition-twisting responses..." http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1998/12/16589 http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1998/12/16589 What follows is a side note to Mark Cuban's point, but it's about Bill Gates and this is HN, so indulge me for a moment... What we should also remember is that Thomas Penfield Jackson, who heard the case, was a preternaturally biased judge, very anti-Microsoft and pro-DOJ, who brought sympathetic journalists into his chambers during the trial for private chats likening Bill Gates and other MS execs to "drug traffickers" and "gangland killers." The appeals court properly slapped Jackson down and handed the case to a different (and unbiased, as far as I could tell) judge: http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/42071?currentPage=all http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/42071?cur... http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/06/44886 http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/06/44886 "rampant disregard for the judiciary's ethical obligations... comments were not only improper, but also would lead a reasonable, informed observer to question the district judge's impartiality..." If you're a smart, biased judge you'd presumably forego the cheap shots of laughing aloud in court and taking potshots at Bill Gates in chambers -- then go as far as you can in your final opinion. But Jackson proved to be a dumb, biased judge, which actually worked in Gates' favor when the appeals court reversed the order that would have carved up Microsoft into multiple pieces.

CamperBob2 12y ago
Also interesting to contemplate: yes, Jackson was an incompetent, biased, and generally pathetic excuse for a judge, but it's hard to argue that both Microsoft and its customers wouldn't be better off if the company had, in fact, been broken up. Sometimes a blind squirrel (or a sleepwalking one in this case) can still find a nut.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Nokia would have been better off...
- declan 12y ago
  Even after spending far too much of my life covering the Microsoft antitrust trial for Wired, I don't actually know whether that's the case or not. I don't think anyone does. The original order, if I recall properly, would have created Microsoft Hardware with Windows/phones/TV boxes/handhelds/etc., and Microsoft Software with Office, IE, BackOffice, Outlook, etc. Note this predated the Xbox, Bing, etc. Maybe it's true that Microsoft Software in this alternate universe would have turned to the cloud earlier than our MS did, but remember Microsoft Software was still pretty much desktop software with the exception of MSN (remember that?). Maybe Microsoft Hardware would have done a better job with mobile devices. Or maybe we wouldn't have seen devices like the Xbox or Kinect without those cross-business subsidies, and the Playstation wouldn't have any real competition today, and there would be less search competition without Bing and the MS money flowing into Yahoo, etc. Really too many variables.
- exelius 12y ago
  Actually, I would disagree. Microsoft's hubris caught up with them in mobile, and they learned some valuable lessons. I would say they are better off now as the Microsoft they are today than they would have been if they had been carved up.
rayiner 12y ago
Fair enough, but Gates didn't help himself either. The point is that you never know when an executive will vent his frustration with the process in a way that comes across to the jury as arrogant and disdainful. You might very well prefer to make your case on a neutral paper record instead of on a jury's perception of your executives' testimony.

by declan 12y ago

CamperBob2 12y ago

Also interesting to contemplate: yes, Jackson was an incompetent, biased, and generally pathetic excuse for a judge, but it's hard to argue that both Microsoft and its customers wouldn't be better off if the company had, in fact, been broken up. Sometimes a blind squirrel (or a sleepwalking one in this case) can still find a nut.

jessaustin 12y ago
Nokia would have been better off...
declan 12y ago
Even after spending far too much of my life covering the Microsoft antitrust trial for Wired, I don't actually know whether that's the case or not. I don't think anyone does. The original order, if I recall properly, would have created Microsoft Hardware with Windows/phones/TV boxes/handhelds/etc., and Microsoft Software with Office, IE, BackOffice, Outlook, etc. Note this predated the Xbox, Bing, etc. Maybe it's true that Microsoft Software in this alternate universe would have turned to the cloud earlier than our MS did, but remember Microsoft Software was still pretty much desktop software with the exception of MSN (remember that?). Maybe Microsoft Hardware would have done a better job with mobile devices. Or maybe we wouldn't have seen devices like the Xbox or Kinect without those cross-business subsidies, and the Playstation wouldn't have any real competition today, and there would be less search competition without Bing and the MS money flowing into Yahoo, etc. Really too many variables.
exelius 12y ago
Actually, I would disagree. Microsoft's hubris caught up with them in mobile, and they learned some valuable lessons. I would say they are better off now as the Microsoft they are today than they would have been if they had been carved up.

rayiner 12y ago

Fair enough, but Gates didn't help himself either. The point is that you never know when an executive will vent his frustration with the process in a way that comes across to the jury as arrogant and disdainful. You might very well prefer to make your case on a neutral paper record instead of on a jury's perception of your executives' testimony.