4 ms·
This is from part 6, priceless: Q And first let me ask a general question, and that is: Did you believe that from Microsoft's standpoint it was desirable to h
by stplsd 12y ago
This is from part 6, priceless:
Q And first let me ask a general question, and that is: Did you believe that from Microsoft's standpoint it was desirable to have as many pure Java applications as possible?
A We weren't focused on that as a goal, no.
Q In fact, is it fair to say that you preferred fewer pure Java applications to more pure Java applications?
A We preferred more applications that took advantage of our APIs, and so we worked with ISVs to maximize the number that took advantage of our
APIs.
Q And your APIs were not pure Java APIs; correct?
A No. Some were, and some weren't.
Q Yes, sir, some were, and some weren't. But the APIs that you wanted people to use were APIs that were not pure Java APIs; correct, sir?
A No. We were glad to have people use both.
Q Were you indifferent as to whether they used your pure Java APIs or your proprietary APIs?
MR. HEINER: Objection.
THE WITNESS (Bill Gates): You've introduced the word proprietary, and that completely changes the question. So help me out, what do you want to know?
Q BY MR. BOIES: Is the term "proprietary API" a term that you're familiar with, sir?
A I don't know what you mean by it.
Q Is it a term you're familiar with in your business?
A I really don't know what you mean. You mean an API that you have a patent on?
- wfjackson 12y ago>Q Is it a term you're familiar with in your business? >A I really don't know what you mean. You mean an API that you have a patent on? Isn't that a good question? An API is essentially a function header. eg. void print(string Text); How can it be proprietary unless it was patented or something? See Oracle vs. Google. While talking to a court one has to be exact. Perhaps the lawyer meant an API implementation that is copyrighted?
- bluedino 12y agoIn Microsofts case it may have meant undocumented. Features only Microsoft knew were there, since they wrote them
- wfjackson 12y agoNo, it's not. If you read the exchange posted by the parent poster again, it's about MS's additional API hooks in Java that were meant to be used by Java developers, so they're definitely not undocumented.
- nl 12y agoBill Gate's answer was " You mean an API that you have a patent on?" If the lawyer had said "Yes", he could have answered "No": Gates knows that patents don't really apply. Otherwise the lawyer would have had to define it, which runs the clock down on how long Gates had to actually answer questions.
- wfjackson 12y agoYes, Bill Gates answer was the question I was referring to as a good one. My formatting of the quoted content was a little messed up in the first line. >If the lawyer had said "Yes", he could have answered "No": No to what? The original question was whether Gates was indifferent to developer usage pure vs. proprietary APIs. This was an attempt by the lawyer to color the APIs as proprietary while asking about pure Java vs. Microsoft's API functions and Gates wanted to know exactly he meant by that term before giving an answer to the question which could imply that was agreeing with the lawyer that the API was "proprietary", which could mean different things to different people. It's like a lawyer asking "Do you like the brand of the beer you stole?", The proper answer is "What do you mean, stole?". Not, "No, I don't like Budweiser".