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: Harvey Allen who wrote (22575)	2/4/1999 10:46:00 PM
From: Harvey Allen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Trial Commentary: Days 48 and 49 For the third day in a row Microsoft is still struggling to put before Judge Jackson a videotape that actually does what Microsoft wrongly claimed the videotape showed on Monday did. Microsoft is seeking to make a simple point, namely that the government-created browserless version of Windows 98 has fatal flaws. As the government cross-examination showed on Tuesday, it was the videotape itself that appeared flawed. After Tuesday's debacle Microsoft came into court on Wednesday obviously confident that it could explain away the apparent discrepancies raised by the government on Tuesday. It was not to be. Continued cross-examination on Wednesday revealed new problems with the videotape, problems that convinced Judge Jackson that there was no way he could rely on that piece of evidence. Once again Microsoft returned to the drawing board, this time attempting to create a brand new videotape that would document the points Microsoft had created the original tape to document. Once again the Microsoft team was not up to the task. Because of Internet connection problems (no small bit of irony there), Microsoft was not able to repeat one of the demonstrations that was included in Monday's ill-starred videotape. Does any of this matter? It obviously matters to the extent that this was an important piece of evidence that Microsoft wanted to use to help prove its case. Microsoft asserts that other evidence, including Mr. Allchin's own testimony, fully establishes the points it needs to make. One problem with this bit of spin control is if, as Microsoft thought when it first created the videotape, seeing is believing, Judge Jackson still has not seen. More importantly, Microsoft's missteps with this videotape give Judge Jackson a more than adequate basis for rejecting all of Microsoft's evidence on this issue of the government's browserless version of Windows 98. Indeed, this miscue, in combination with other problems such as Dean Schmalensee's reliance on a survey that Microsoft's own employees severely criticized, could provide a more far-reaching basis for Judge Jackson to reject many critical aspects of Microsoft's evidence as not credible. Judge Jackson can do this even if he does not believe that Microsoft was deliberately falsifying evidence. Right now it appears that the videotape problems are the result of bad judgment and simple mistakes rather than evil intent. Even if, however, the Judge believes that the problems with Microsoft's evidence are only a result of sloppy work, he can still reject that evidence as incomplete, inaccurate, and unreliable. If Microsoft gives the government much more ammunition to work with on this front, the implications go beyond Judge Jackson. Many observers of this trial believe that the government can expect to do well before Judge Jackson, with Microsoft hoping to overturn any adverse rulings on appeal. If Microsoft continues to create a record where its evidence is suspect, however, that will make it very difficult for the Court of Appeals to second-guess Judge Jackson. sjmercury.com Microsoft credibility damaged in video fiasco Published: Thursday, Feb. 4, 1999, 4:30 p.m. BY ELLIOT ZARET Special to the Mercury News WASHINGTON -- As the Microsoft videotape saga whimpered to a close Thursday, a Microsoft spokesman admitted that the original video -- which had been submitted to the court as sworn evidence -- was nothing more than an "illustration." sjmercury.com