Gates to take the stand.

Post #36,020 by admin 4/19/02 3:24:38 PM Reply	Gates to take the stand. [link\|http://news.com.com/2100-1001-887204.html\|news.com story] Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #36,027 by Brandioch 4/19/02 3:57:58 PM Reply	Interesting paragraph there. Gates' appearance next week would be his first in-person appearance at the trial. In the main portion of the trial, Gates appeared in a videotaped deposition. In portions of that videotape, Gates repeatedly answered questions with "I don't know" and "I don't recall." His statements were frequently contradicted by e-mails he had sent and received, and he frequently claimed no recollection of the messages. Now that is a rather critical statement. :) I'm thinking this is going to go over bad for MS. Bad in a Big Way. The states will be watching for ANY chance to pull up the sound bites from his deposition and the media will just eat up any stumbles on Bill's part. Dumb move, MS.
Post #36,070 by Silverlock 4/21/02 9:47:56 AM Reply	Re: Dumb move, MS. Nah. They're going for the sympathy vote. Sort of like, "Aw, the poor little autistic kid made good and now he's getting picked on. Poor little bugger". Can't you just see him get a question he knows he can't answer truthfully and start rockin' back and forth like a metronome. Don't blame me. I voted with the majority.
Post #36,129 by Another Scott 4/22/02 2:41:17 PM Reply	Testimony - Bloomberg story. [link\|http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top%20Financial%20News&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_topfin&T=markets_bfgcgi_content99.ht&s2=ad_right1_topfin&bt=ad_position1_topfin&middle=ad_frame2_topfin&s=APMQ.tRTRTWljcm9z\|Here]. The URL will probably change. The nine states' proposal ``would imperil Microsoft's business and technology model, depriving the marketplace of the primary benefits that Windows provides and thereby greatly devaluing the product,'' Gates said. The 156-page statement was submitted in writing, and Gates took the stand for cross- examination by the states' lawyers. [...] By referring to the settlement only in passing, Gates may avoid being questioned about it under rules that confine cross-examination to the scope of the direct testimony. Hmmm. Cheers, Scott.
Post #36,131 by CRConrad 4/22/02 2:54:08 PM Reply	Then I'd suggest they ask... Scott [Quoting Bloomberg:] By referring to the settlement only in passing, Gates may avoid being questioned about it under rules that confine cross-examination to the scope of the direct testimony. Hmmm. ...why he does so. "Mr Gates, isn't it true that the purpose of these hearings is to determine a remedy for the conduct your company has been judged guilty of?" "Then why do you, the founder and biggest shareholder and 'eminence pas-tres-grise' of that company, not address that issue at all in your testimony???" That ought to be a legitimate question, ought it not? "Goes to the witness' character / credibility / motivation", as they say in all those Merkin courtroom dramas we get on the boob toob. Christian R. Conrad Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #36,140 by imric 4/22/02 4:23:51 PM Reply	Nah. Doesn'tt matter. The fix is in. Remember, those doing cross-exam already conceded defeat (and claimed that they were unable to win) AFTER winning the case. Don't expect any real questioning at all - expect, rather, that the 'prosecuton' will ask only questions that lead to the answers that Mr. Gates wants to answer. US infotech is doomed. We in the US must now look overseas for low prices and innovation - and THAT will be subject to protectionist policies put into place for the sole purpose of protecting MS from competitive pressures (however the Feds rationalize thier actions - prolly in 9/11 terms, though)) or technologies that threaten it's monopoly holdings. I might remind you that the market responded to the MS's monopoly abuse by bypassing the supply&demand model entirely - expect the US to try and use it's own market clout to prop up that model (no matter how inappropriate it is to an industry without signifigant supply constraints) and it's biggest proponent amongst suppliers of 'soft' products. Bottom line: Watch the actions of the DoJ make the US irrelevant WRT new information technology; watch the US get left behind. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #36,181 by Silverlock 4/22/02 11:20:14 PM Reply	Already happenning You can read foriegn papers and see that more and more countries are making it the law of the land to only use free software to run government computers. Scandinavia, most of South America and ALL of China. that would be about a third of the population of the world. Perhaps not a third of the computer using population, but just give it time. Don't blame me. I voted with the majority.
Post #36,208 by imric 4/23/02 9:47:15 AM Reply	I don't want to see it happen like this. For all my griping, I do harbor some pretty deep patriotic feelings toward the US; I'd like us to participate in (and adapt to) the future, not to try and force it into the shape of the past... I think that course of action is doomed. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #36,139 by Brandioch 4/22/02 4:17:48 PM Reply	Ummmm, isn't that the idea? The nine states' proposal ``would imperil Microsoft's business and technology model, depriving the marketplace of the primary benefits that Windows provides and thereby greatly devaluing the product,'' Gates said. Isn't their business model based upon the illegal maintenance of their desktop monopoly? By referring to the settlement only in passing, Gates may avoid being questioned about it under rules that confine cross-examination to the scope of the direct testimony. 156 pages and he only referred to the settlement "in passing"? Then what is contained in all of those pages? If the material contained within those pages doesn't address the issues, and allow for cross-examination, will the judge consider it?
Post #36,412 by tuberculosis 4/24/02 3:35:27 PM Reply	Zero Tolerance If you run a little shipping business moving herbal stimulants from Columbia to the US and make a huge pile of money and you get caught - US Law provides for the confiscation without compensation of all assets obtained as the result of your coke distribution operation. The idea is one may not profit from illegally gotten gains. Of course, the current MS spiel is "Yes sir, we did break the law in the past. No sir, we are not presently breaking the law, nor do we intend to break the law in the future. If we are left to continue operations we will have no need to break the law as we have sufficient resources to crush all comers legally now." OK, the last line is unspoken for the most part but that's the gist. Of course, the resources MS uses to maintain their "competitive edge" were mostly obtained illegally. Thus, I don't see how the US can reasonably refrain from confiscation of all MS assets. Sure, its a corporate death sentence. But how many corporate citizens did MS murder illegally? Bust em up and deprive them of their assets. Its the only legal course of action. The average hunter gatherer works 20 hours a week. The average farmer works 40 hours a week. The average programmer works 60 hours a week. What the hell are we thinking?
Post #36,428 by Ashton 4/24/02 4:52:39 PM Reply	With ya.____But this be Murica-The-Corporation,___ y'know ?

Welcome to IWETHEY!