Gates Criticizes Government's Lawyers for Tone of His Deposition nytimes.com
Good to see Bill still free from the hobgoblin of small minds. Before, he was acting on his lawyer's advice. Now, it's Boies' fault. Next, will it be Mark Andreeson's fantastical invention? The whining crybaby sore winner strikes again.
Perhaps the potentially most damaging criticism was a comment two weeks ago by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who is hearing the case in Federal District Court here. "It's evident to every spectator that for whatever reasons, in many respects Gates has not been particularly responsive to his deposition interrogation," Judge Jackson told Microsoft lawyers.
Asked about the judge's remarks today, Gates said, "I answered every question, but Boies made it clear that he is out to destroy Microsoft and make us look very bad."
Good luck on destroying Microsoft, Boies. Does Bill consider his empire so fragile? As fragile as Windows, perhaps? Was Boies supposed to make him look good? Find a fashion consultant, Bill.
Gates spoke over a satellite video link to an news conference held here and organized by Microsoft to accuse the Government of attempting to try the case in the news media.
"They are trying to turn this into a P.R. spectacle," said Charles F. Rule, a former head of the Justice Department's antitrust division who is now a Microsoft legal consultant.
As he spoke, Mr Rule was flanked by the leaders of Microsoft's legal team and large video monitors for Gates's appearance. "Our focus is in the courtroom," Rule said, "but we cannot and will not stand by without responding."
Since the Justice Department filed suit against Microsoft in May, the Government has not held a news conference relating to the case, nor has it issued a news release, except those about scheduling matters.
Microsoft, on the other hand, holds one or two news briefings each week and regularly issues position papers and releases. Today, for example, the company distributed a 21-page report titled "A Case of Trial in Error: The Microsoft Antitrust Suit" that largely repeats legal and political arguments the company has already made several times.
Nice to see the Times hasn't lost its sense of irony, though this is a bit more heavy handed than usual. Bill and Microsoft, meanwhile, seem beyond irony impairment into pure obliviousness.
In his testimony, Dr. Farber disputes Microsoft's assertion that bundling Internet software with the Windows operating system improves the efficiency of both products. In its suit, the Government accuses Microsoft of bundling the two products as a tool to put Netscape, its chief rival in the market for Web browsers, at a disadvantage.
"These same efficiencies can be achieved without bundling of the Web browser software with what Microsoft calls its Windows operating system," Dr. Farber testified. "This is because there are no technical barriers that prevent Microsoft from developing and selling its Windows operating system as a stand-alone product separate from its browser software."
He added: "There are no technical efficiencies for users achieved by combining Microsoft's browser software with the remainder of the software sold as Windows 98 that could not be achieved by writing two programs in a manner that later could be loaded and 'integrated' " by manufacturers or consumers.
Responding in a news release this evening, Microsoft said: " Farber has provided nothing more than an opinion piece on how he thinks Microsoft could have or should have designed Windows. But in our market economy, Government consultants don't get to redesign software products."
On the please explain issue, Gerald, we've been through this before. If I get the chance, I'll dig up something old I wrote that seemed to impress Sal at the time. On this front, the 'softies seem to be taking your advice, "our market economy" echoes "our capitalistic system". Which is fine as political philosophy, but to my naive understanding somewhat irrelevant as a legal defense. I'm still confused why "the market economy" isn't giving us an OS that sucks less, but at least we didn't get the dreaded "Microsoft must be free to innovate". Maybe that one's too obviously ironic now. I don't know how philosophical you can get in a legal brief, maybe we'll see when this goes to the Supreme Court. Who knows, they could throw out antitrust law all together if they wanted to.
Cheers, Dan. |
