Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rudedog who wrote (21289)	11/9/1998 9:28:00 AM
From: nnillionaire	Respond to of 24154

From today's WSJ: Even Great CEOs Can End Up Being Terrible Witnesses in Court interactive.wsj.com >Mr. Gates, who steered his company to world-wide dominance in computer software, was seen gazing down at the table in front of him, rocking back and forth in his chair and repeatedly answering "I don't know" and "I can't recall." At one point, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who is hearing the case without a jury, chuckled and shook his head in apparent disbelief. "Whoever prepared Gates should be shot," says Mikal Watts, a plaintiff's lawyer in Corpus Christi, Tex., who has grilled a number of CEOs.<

To: rudedog who wrote (21289)	11/9/1998 10:00:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

rudedog, I've never been deposed, but I understand the process well enough. "I can't recall" has always been a popular answer in the political equivalent, long before the current affair. Microsoft has every right to defend itself however it sees fit. I rag on Bill because he's got such a long trail of public pronouncements on the matter behind him, and because Microsoft has always been so energetic in getting its defense of the moment out in public. Till a short while ago, it was always Bill in the lead with the story of the day. So, Bill said he couldn't remember a thing. Deposition-dependent amnesia, fairly commonplace, I'll leave out the more inflammatory alternatives. That's fine, but the "could you remember all your email" line just doesn't wash. That would presume Bill wasn't in the middle of all this stuff, and didn't think it was very important. And that, in my opinion of course, flies in the face of common sense, not to mention previous versions of the official Microsoft PR story, like that giant Business Week article. Just entertainment, rudedog. Having tangled far too much with the political dogs of war here, no way can I take this seriously. And it wouldn't be entertaining at all if Microsoft didn't have such a voluminous PR trail to contrast with the current line. Is the final Microsoft version of the infamous Netscape meeting going to be that they were set up? Cheers, Dan.

To: rudedog who wrote (21289)	11/9/1998 2:59:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Rudedog, I've been involved in a couple of court cases myself, and as I recall, there are three basic rules to answering a question to a deposition: 1) Answer the question. 2) Tell the truth. 3) Do not volunteer information that wasn't asked. Yes, if you are not sure of something, you are supposed to say "I don't remember," and yes, you don't have to give them information that they're not smart enough to ask. And yes, you can occasionally get away with saying "I don't remember," even when you do. However, telling the truth is still a legal obligation. Bill Gates lied in his deposition when he said "I don't remember," so many times. And that was obvious to everyone, whether or not people consider it shrewd. Now here's my point: credibility is IMPORTANT in a deposition. If Bill Gates is not credible, then ALL of Microsoft's positions lose credibility. What's going to happen when Boies asks a Microsoft employee, "do you remember this email from Bill Gates?" and shows him an email that Gates had no recollection of? That employee will have to choose between showing up his boss by saying "Yes I remember," or looking like an idiot on the stand. What's the judge going to do when deciding whom to believe? He'll very reasonably take the side of the people who were willing to answer the questions. The point is, this whole thing may have aspects of a game, but the game is far more subtle than Microsoft is playing it. Frankly, I can't wait for Boies cross-examination-- that's going to be the high point of this trial.