4 ms·

Thank you for this valuable background. So as I understand, Bill Gates' deposition is legally correct but so terribly unpopular that it's the wrong thing to do,

by aragot 12y ago

Thank you for this valuable background. So as I understand, Bill Gates' deposition is legally correct but so terribly unpopular that it's the wrong thing to do, am I right? Besides, what was the outcome of the trial? If I understand: - It started in May 1998, - In April 2000, it was judged that Microsoft acted consistently in an anti-competitive wat, - In June 2000, judge Jackson orders the break-up of Microsoft into two companies. It was reverted in September 2001, presumably because it doesn't make sense anymore. - In November 1998, Microsoft is ordered to stop selling products which contain an incompatible version of Java. Sun wins this ruling. - In 1997, Microsoft is ordered not to require OEMs to ship IE with Windows. It looks to me that all those interviews have led to very little outcomes. Any expert's opinion on this? http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2002/11/35212 http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2002/11/35212

manish_gill 12y ago
I'm just going to paraphrase some quotes from the discussion I had with the aforementioned friend, since I think he puts it much more succinctly """ Indeed. I mean, people think that Gates is being so clever with his pedantic word-play jargon games, but they are forgetting is that the Federal prosecutor is smarter at word games, is well versed in law, and can easily pick out minutiae. He would have just made Gates wait 6 hours and ask the question again and again and again, until finally, he writes up a report saying how uncooperative Mr. Bill Gates was during the deposition (whose entire point is that you are supposed to cooperate) and thus making the case of plea bargaining even harder. (He is quite smart. Probably top of the class at Harvard law knowing how federal prosecutors are hired.) The whole idea of a deposition is you try and co-operate. If I were a judge do you see why I'd take a very dim view of that tape? The article is cnn's main story from that year. But as a sign of how worried Microsoft is about the effect of the videotape, the company brought in a hired gun to talk to reporters about how depositions are typically combative and involve "jousting" and, in that sense, how Gates' deposition was "unremarkable."" When you have to do that, you know something is wrong. Oh and btw that is completely disregarding how it affects public opinion which in turn might harden Justice dept through pressure via political bodies (congress and white house) that are susceptible to public opinion. Remember, all depositions are public record. It might seem quite funny and clever to you but an average American outside the Valley probably sees it very different - an overpaid arrogant CEO. """ As for how come there was very little outcome, apparently it's a fairly well established claim in various law journals that the whole reason MSFT case failed was because after 9/11, they didn't seem to want to go after an American champion. Or MSFT would've been broken apart. Prosecuting them changed as political priorities changed. (Date of settlement is November '01). And a Republican revival started around the same time. Also note that Gates retired a few months later. Official reasoning was given as him feeling burned out, apparently.
- aragot 12y ago
  Great wrtie-up. Thanks. Europe wasn't so lenient. Microsoft paid more than $2bn in fines for Windows Media Player and for not giving the choice of web browser in some versions of the OS. Nellie Kroes was the leader here. Including €561 for skipping the browser choice dialog, which was mandatory because of a settlement of Microsoft, for 14 months in 2009. This is 3%-6% of their worlwide revenue ($30bn circa 2002, $60bn circa 2009). http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_comp... http://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-global-revenue-since-2002/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-global-... I wonder if European trial customs are a bit more intuitive and less based on the preciseness of contracts/laws than in US, leading to shorter, more intuitive decisions?

by aragot 12y ago

manish_gill 12y ago

I'm just going to paraphrase some quotes from the discussion I had with the aforementioned friend, since I think he puts it much more succinctly """ Indeed. I mean, people think that Gates is being so clever with his pedantic word-play jargon games, but they are forgetting is that the Federal prosecutor is smarter at word games, is well versed in law, and can easily pick out minutiae. He would have just made Gates wait 6 hours and ask the question again and again and again, until finally, he writes up a report saying how uncooperative Mr. Bill Gates was during the deposition (whose entire point is that you are supposed to cooperate) and thus making the case of plea bargaining even harder. (He is quite smart. Probably top of the class at Harvard law knowing how federal prosecutors are hired.) The whole idea of a deposition is you try and co-operate. If I were a judge do you see why I'd take a very dim view of that tape? The article is cnn's main story from that year. But as a sign of how worried Microsoft is about the effect of the videotape, the company brought in a hired gun to talk to reporters about how depositions are typically combative and involve "jousting" and, in that sense, how Gates' deposition was "unremarkable."" When you have to do that, you know something is wrong. Oh and btw that is completely disregarding how it affects public opinion which in turn might harden Justice dept through pressure via political bodies (congress and white house) that are susceptible to public opinion. Remember, all depositions are public record. It might seem quite funny and clever to you but an average American outside the Valley probably sees it very different - an overpaid arrogant CEO. """ As for how come there was very little outcome, apparently it's a fairly well established claim in various law journals that the whole reason MSFT case failed was because after 9/11, they didn't seem to want to go after an American champion. Or MSFT would've been broken apart. Prosecuting them changed as political priorities changed. (Date of settlement is November '01). And a Republican revival started around the same time. Also note that Gates retired a few months later. Official reasoning was given as him feeling burned out, apparently.

aragot 12y ago
Great wrtie-up. Thanks. Europe wasn't so lenient. Microsoft paid more than $2bn in fines for Windows Media Player and for not giving the choice of web browser in some versions of the OS. Nellie Kroes was the leader here. Including €561 for skipping the browser choice dialog, which was mandatory because of a settlement of Microsoft, for 14 months in 2009. This is 3%-6% of their worlwide revenue ($30bn circa 2002, $60bn circa 2009). http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_comp... http://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-global-revenue-since-2002/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-global-... I wonder if European trial customs are a bit more intuitive and less based on the preciseness of contracts/laws than in US, leading to shorter, more intuitive decisions?