In fairness, I have to say I have a feeling that the term "falsifying video" is probably a bit of journalistic license on the part of USA Today, and AFX News too, since they ran a story with similar accusations. However, I say that with the caveat that I was not there and have not seen the actual transcript of what went on.
Here's a clip from a Dow Jones article that may be talking about the same thing:
Dow Jones News Service
Copyright (c) 1999, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Tuesday, February 2, 1999
Microsoft Mistakes -4: Co. Tries But Can't Explain
Problem
An embarrassed Microsoft returned to federal district court Tuesday afternoon claiming its videotape demonstration was not faulty, but unable to explain a significant remaining discrepancy.
In morning testimony at the company's antitrust trial, Microsoft Senior Vice President James Allchin acknowledged that the videotape contained several mistakes and inconsistencies.
He also had admitted that several supposedly untouched computers that he initially claimed had only Windows 98 installed on them had other programs, such as Microsoft's Office, and registries that had been tampered with. Registries are used to change the settings in a computer.
The demonstration was intended to show the value of integrating Windows 98 and the Explorer browser. It also sought to illustrate how a Princeton University assistant professor's program designed to disable browsing in Windows 98 impeded the performance of the operating system.
Microsoft said after conferring with its engineers, who set up and ran the machines at the company's Redmond, Wash., headquarters, that a machine in the demonstration had Assistant Professor Edward Felten's program on it. Allchin admitted earlier in the day the machine apparently did not have the program when it ran sluggishly on its way to the Windows Update Web site.
However, the company was unable to explain why a software title bar running across to the top of the computer screen continued to indicate the Felten program hadn't been installed.
This is "one small aspect of the screen shot" and it doesn't change the results of the test, said company General Counsel William Neukom, referring to videotape. "This is a tiny part of a very long tape."
All it shows is that "things can happen with software," he said.
Nevertheless, David Boies, the government's lead attorney, maintained that as evidence in the trial, the videotape was "unreliable. We don't really have an explanation."
He said he didn't suspect foul play on Microsoft's part. The only mistake Allchin probably made was relying on other people, Boies said.
================================================
So, assuming your USA Today article is talking about the same thing, I would say that "falsifying evidence" is too strong and that "honest mistake" is a more accurate characterization of what Microsoft did. Deliberate falsification of evidence is a very serious charge.
On the other hand, I take back everything I said yesterday about Boies' cross-examination of Allchin not being a disaster.
How Microsoft could screw up perhaps the single most important presentation for them in this case is simply beyond me. |
