PMS Witch: Why do you assume that Microsoft is free of guilt?
Microsoft is free of guilt, but perhaps fails the 'appearance' test.
You have no basis for that statement. Rather, the evidence points to this statment:
Microsoft fails the 'appearance' test, but perhaps is free of guilt.
The trial must establish guilt, not the appearance of guilt.
Again, incorrect. The appearance of guilt is evidence of guilt. Microsoft has the same access to email that the DOJ does. Microsoft could have supported the appearance of innocence pretty simply:
1) Not telling material lies on the stand. Getting caught in a lie is evidence of a guilty conscience. Judge Jackson and the rest of the world are entitled to believe that if someone is lying, then they're trying to cover up stuff. Dan Rosen must have believed that he did something wrong for him to sit in front of the world and destroy his reputation. Same with Jim Allchin and some others.
2) Not presenting doctored videotapes. Again, why do they keep hiding stuff? Presenting half of a memo, skipping steps in a download? It's evidence that they're afraid of the full story.
3) Presenting evidence (emails and the like) that show negotiations that were fair and legal. For example, how about an email from Bill Gates about that June 1995 meeting that doesn't include the term "move Netscape out of Win32."? Doesn't exist, you say? Well, Microsoft's inability to present exculpatory evidence is evidence of their guilt. That also goes with Bill Gate's disgusting deposition.
And nobody try to feed us that stupid line that depositions are like that. Read some of the other depositions. Read any court deposition. The ones who believe in their innocence are always eager to talk about what happened-- after all, what happened supports their innocence. They have to be restrained by their lawyers from talking too much, so that they don't elaborate in ways that could be contradicted. But they don't sit there and argue over words like Mr. Gates did. |
