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: XiaoYao who wrote (21451)	11/13/1998 2:50:00 PM
From: XiaoYao	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

THESE ARE THE TERMS THAT TRY . . . ESPECIALLY IN COURT EUN-KYUNG KIM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 11/12/98 Seattle Post-Intelligencer FINAL Page E1 (Copyright 1998) Perhaps Microsoft attorney John Warden explained it best: "There are a few of us, including myself, who still use fountain pens and legal pads." And boy, does it show at the big antitrust trial in Washington. A case that's full of technical jargon like ISPs, OEMs, NTs, and CPUs may seem no place for techno-neophytes. Yet some key players in the Microsoft trial sometimes seem just that. Could it be that Warden, Justice Department attorney David Boies and U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson are showing their age when they stumble over technology's lingo, seemingly less familiar with it than the average eighth-grader? The signs were apparent from the beginning. Microsoft is renowned for its Powerpoint software, the standard for business presentations worldwide. But when Microsoft's Warden made his opening statement, he stuck to an old standby: the overhead projector, sliding documents one by one, adjusting the focus by hand. Compare that to the government's flashy, high-tech presentation, with Boies underscoring each point with documents enlarged by computer on screens throughout the courtroom. Yet Boies has shown he's no techno-wonk either. Take, for example, his repeated references to "American Online," known to most people as America Online, the world's leading online service provider. Then there was the day Boies questioned a witness about a "LOW- jin." "Log in?" the witness offered. "L-o-g, i-n?" "Yes," Boies replied, realizing his mistake. "You're going fine," reassured the witness, one of the nation's top technology executives, Netscape's James Barksdale. "I knew that, I knew that. I was just testing to see whether you were paying attention," Boies said, providing one of the trial's rare laughs. To be sure, the case is a complicated one for both the average person and the judge overseeing it without a jury. And Jackson's unfamiliarity with some of high-tech's terms has been clear throughout. "How do we know this is from Microsoft?" he asked once, when Warden introduced an e-mail note. "Where it says, 'From: Microsoft.com.' That's Microsoft," Warden explained. "OK," the judge said, satisfied. There have been surprises. When an Intel executive explained recently that his company used Netscape's Internet browser, not Microsoft's, for the company's internal information network, Jackson asked: "For your intranet?" Some spectators gasped that Jackson knew the correct terminology to distinguish the public Internet and a private intranet. Jackson merely rocked back, looking pleased. More common, though, has been this type of exchange: Jackson urged Microsoft attorney Warden to speed up cross-examination of a witness. According to the transcript, Warden said he would try but he wasn't as far along with the witness as he had hoped. The judge: "Well, he's not being evasive. He's being responsive to your questions." Microsoft attorney: "Sometimes he doesn't seem to understand them, but that's in good faith." The judge: "Sometimes I don't understand them, either." Microsoft attorney: "Sometimes I may not understand them myself." With that, the judge said: "Let's take a 10-minute recess."