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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mozek who wrote (12903)	12/3/1998 2:15:00 AM
From: ed	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

I think the judge just has his mind pre set, and had already taken side, so this is not a fair trial anyway. This trial just showed the rest of the world what the US justice system really is, and personally , I think it is just a joke !!!!!!!!!!Power can corrupt everything, it is even more horrible than the NAZI !!!!!!!! and the legal system is controlled by few people, and people can not have a say at all !!!

To: mozek who wrote (12903)	12/3/1998 2:23:00 AM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 74651

Yes, I have been deposed by an opposing attorney, although not for 16 hours, and not for the stakes here. I've also viewed depositions. I do understand depo-speak. I'm also not going to claim that my lawyer was better than the Microsoft lawyers, nor am I going to claim that I'm smarter than Bill Gates. However.... 1) Before my deposition, my lawyer made it very clear to me that one reason for a deposition is to allow the other side to assess the credibility of the witness/deposee(?), and weigh the benefits of going to trial and querying the witness in court. No, I didn't spill everything. However, I did answer the questions and didn't play word games. I even (gasp) answered some questions in a way that I knew might hurt my case. Why did I do that? Because the true answer to the question was hurtful to my case, so I was left with either not answering the question or lying. But by choosing the truth, I gained credibility in the eyes of the opposing lawyer, and thus helped to convince him that I would make a formidable witness. Meanwhile, the guy I was suing gave a terrible deposition, making it clear that no jury would believe him. And they capitulated. Ok, one tiny story, but at least some evidence that the rules are somewhat more complex than 'give as little as possible.' 2) Thought experiment: Imagine what would happen to the DOJ witnesses on the stand if they played the same games when being cross-examined. Microsoft has a right to get answers out of Warren-Boulton, Barksdale, McGready, etc.. and Microsoft pretty much got them, for better or worse. If Barksdale had gone on and on with 'what do you mean, browser?' and stuff like that, his DOJ testimony would have been shot to hell. Warden would have said to the judge "hey, this guy isn't being fair, he gave the DOJ all this stuff and he's clamming up for me." And the judge might have had to throw out Barksdales' testimony. 3) Whatever the rules of depo-speak are in a private civil lawsuit, they are very different when you are facing the government. The government lawyers are representing the citizenry of the United States of America. We the people are the ones who granted Bill Gates a business license in the first place. So more than a private complainant like Sun or Caldera, we are owed honest and complete answers about how he's running his business. As far as the judge allowing the DOJ to replay a little bit each time, keep in mind the following: 1) The DOJ originally wanted to play the whole thing at once, but Microsoft objected. Bad move. 2) The judge has a legal right to assess the credibility of the witness. The main witness in this case is the CEO of Microsoft. There is something in law known as a "guilty conscience," basically, if you don't answer a question, it can be presumed that you think that you did a no-no. So now everyone (have you been following the press?) presumes that Gates believes that he broke the law. 3) Have a thought experiment-- suppose Gates answered the questions completely, not just technically completely, but really completely, even helping the DOJ lawyers. "Yes, Maritz sent me that email. Yes, he said undermine Java. Yes, I worried about Java and considered it a threat to Windows. Yes, we introduced changes into Java which we knew might cause incompatibilities." He could then have added, "but we don't think it is illegal. And here's why--" And then he could have presented a defense. It's actually not too late for that. Microsoft could call Gates, and let him speak on behalf of his company practices. Let him make a positive argument why Microsoft is following the law. That's what Clinton did in his Grand Jury testimony, and look how well he's doing. I think that Microsoft should settle, I keep saying that. Don't play games with releasing the damn APIs, don't play air-supply games with other people's resellers, don't introduce new keywords into Java(they really thought they could get away with that?), and pay a few billion dollars to Netscape and a few other companies who are going to start suing. It won't be the end of the world.