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 : Citrix Systems (CTXS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (6117)	2/2/1999 3:44:00 PM
From: dreydoc	Respond to of 9068

Just incredible...literally. Tuesday February 2 2:41 PM ET Microsoft Executive Asked If The Truth Matters By David Lawsky WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A government lawyer, in one of the most dramatic moments of the Microsoft antitrust trial, asked company executive James Allchin Tuesday if he understood that it mattered whether he told the truth under oath. The issue arose after the government raised questions about the veracity of a Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) videotaped demonstration that seemed to show problems with a government-modified version of Windows 98. On the tape, a Microsoft narrator described a ''performance degradation'' in the government version, and showed a long delay in seeking a Web site. But government lawyer David Boies examined the tape closely with the witness to show that what was on the screen was not the government-modified version at all. Instead, it was the unmodified Microsoft version that showed the ''performance degradation.'' ''This video that you brought in to the court and you vouched for and testified how much you checked ... That's just wrong, isn't it?'' asked Boies. After some further exchange, Allchin -- a senior vice president and technology specialist at Microsoft -- acknowledged that his assistants may have made a mistake in preparing the tape. But he said that the inaccuracy did not matter. ''I didn't worry'' about some of the inconsistencies on the tape, said Allchin, noting that he had run similar tests himself and found problems. ''The truth is that those problems exist.'' At that, Boies stopped cold. He looked at Allchin and asked: ''Mr. Allchin, you do understand that you came in here and you swore this was accurate?'' Said Allchin: ''To the best of my ability.'' Boies continued: ''You know it does matter whether what you said is right or wrong -- you know that matters, don't you?'' District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson listened to the exchange without giving any indication of what he thought. Jackson, who is the ''finder of fact,'' will have to decide at the trial's end which witnesses he believes and which he does not. That judgment will help him decide which evidence to rely upon in making his decision on allegations by the Justice Department and 19 states that Microsoft used monopoly power to illegally preserve that power and extend it to other areas of business. The government charges that Microsoft integrated its Internet Explorer Web browser into Windows 98 in order to compete unfairly against a rival browser made by Netscape Communications Corp. (Nasdaq:NSCP - news) . At issue Tuesday was a Microsoft demonstration that was supposed to show problems with a government effort to disentangle Microsoft's Web browser from Windows 98. The government tried to show the two programs were not as integrated as Microsoft has claimed. Allchin testified that the Microsoft tests were performed on ''virgin machines.'' At first Allchin testified that a machine was ''virgin'' if it had nothing but Windows 98 loaded on to it. When it turned out that some of the machines used for Microsoft's tests had Microsoft Office loaded on them, or had changes in the Windows ''registry'' -- which is critical to the control of the machine -- Allchin said those, too, were ''virgin.'' Boies pounced. ''Didn't you just tell me within the last three minutes that when you said 'virgin machine,' you meant a machine that had just Windows 98 on it and nothing else?'' he asked. ''It's not something that makes a difference,'' Allchin said as Boies pressed the point. ''It's irrelevant.''

To: Roger A. Babb who wrote (6117)	2/2/1999 3:55:00 PM
From: dreydoc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

And more fun...I admit it - I'm enjoying this. Tuesday February 2 2:30 PM ET Mr. Windows' shaky start on the stand By Charles Cooper, ZDNet WASHINGTON -- When the prosecution rested late last year, Microsoft promised that its 12 witnesses would put to rest the government's charges about anti-competitive behavior. But Microsoft's defense has got off to an uneven start. The first witness to take the stand for Microsoft, MIT professor Richard Schmalensee, was touted as the anti-Fisher; that is, an expert whose facts and figures would debunk the claims made by the government's economist -- also from MIT -- Franklin Fisher. But Schmalensee turned out to be a big bust as the often befuddled egghead got manhandled by the Justice Department's lead lawyer, David Boies. Next up was Paul Maritz, the Microsoft (Nasdaq:MSFT) group vice president who also happened to be the No. 2 executive in the company. If anyone could be counted upon to make a spirited defense and defend to the court the company's strategy, this was the man. But after a strong start, Maritz, too, failed to live up to his potential as a strong witness. Again, Maritz's neutered performance was no doubt constrained by the lapidary questioning of Boies. Now the task falls to James Allchin, Microsoft's Mr. Windows. This soft-spoken southerner, who bears an unnerving resemblance to Andy Warhol -- at least he did for his first 15 minutes on the stand Monday -- paradoxically turned out to be a very good witness for the government! Technical tour-de-force During the morning, the two sides watched a numbing two-and-a-half hours of canned product demonstrations designed to show the benefits derived from browser integration in Windows 98. It was a technical tour-de-force but Boies pounced upon errors in the presentation as he sought to turn it into a tour-de-farce. Allchin started off by cataloging the advantages of Web browser integration with the operating system. But Boies stopped him cold when he got the Microsoft exec to acknowledge that users could achieve the same result by adding Internet Explorer to Windows 95. Allchin, who maintained that Internet Explorer replaced core Windows code, said that users who added code were simply doing something akin to updating Windows. But that would mean consumers had a choice. And Boies made sure Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson heard that Microsoft has stopped making versions of its Windows operating system without incorporating the Internet browser. Judge all ears He didn't have to reach for high dudgeon; the judge was paying keen attention to the exchange right throughout. Boies also got Allchin to change his answer when asked if Microsoft had integrated the browser as a response to the platform threat posed by Web applications. At first he said "no" but then changed to a qualified "yes" after being read excerpts from a deposition by an underling, Ben Slivka. The government wants to convince the judge that Microsoft didn't really need to weld the operating system to the browser. In that connection, the Slivka testimony is not helpful -- and even less helpful is Allchin's untimely admission.