Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Microsoft

Another MS Witness with Egg on Face 190

I-man writes "Extra extra! DOJ lawyer completely destroys the credibility of yet another Redmond Exec!" Wrap it up people. This is just getting to loony. I'm not sure which "Bill" related trial is more boring right now. They're both pretty darn funny though. Update: 02/23 02:24 by CT : cswiii sent us a nice link to a CNN story about a Six-week break trial. After which we'll finally get some closing.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Another MS Witness with Egg on Face

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I wonder how much money the goverment is WASTEING on this trial?

    First of all - Netscape, Sun, Novell, and whoever else is taking part should have to pay for this. Right now all they pay for is lobbyist. Netscape has over 10x more lobbyist in DC than Microsoft has ever had, and Bill won't hire more because he doesn't believe this is politically driven. However it's nothing BUT politically driven.

    The only this this case is going to do is possibly make Windows a WORSE product than it already is, and that will just screw US (the users forced to use it) because businesses will still use it because it's still going to be more popular. Like VHS vs BetaMax, or CD's vs MiniDisc, or McDonalds vs any other fastfood chain.

    ON THE OTHERHAND - lets say the goverment makes Microsoft give the source to other companies. Well great - then those companies' software for WINDOWS will be better! So Windows becomes an even more attractive enviorment!

    IMHO, why not bring hardware manufacutures into this and force them to develop non-Microsoft platform drivers. "If you include Windows 95/NT Drivers then you must include Linux/BeOS drivers." Same thing with support people, OEMs, networking, etc...

    Fair ground is what we need. Microsoft is on a mountain. If we can't lower the mountain, the at least raise us up to that height. :-)
  • by Anonymous Coward
    This is a perfect example of FUD in action!

    I wonder how much money the goverment is WASTEING on this trial?

    No numbers of course...just speculation.... makes you wonder how much, eh?

    First of all - Netscape, Sun, Novell, and whoever else is taking part should have to pay for this. Right now all they pay for is lobbyist. Netscape has over 10x more lobbyist in DC than Microsoft has ever had, and Bill won't hire more because he doesn't believe this is politically driven. However it's nothing BUT politically driven.

    Ahh... more speculation.... 10x more lobbyists, yet there are not numbers on whether 10 or 100,000 lobbyists exist or whether or not this is just a dumb ass opinion.

    The only this this case is going to do is possibly make Windows a WORSE product than it already is, and that will just screw US (the users forced to use it) because businesses will still use it because it's still going to be more popular. Like VHS vs BetaMax, or CD's vs MiniDisc, or McDonalds vs any other fastfood chain.

    Complete speculation comparing examples that have no relevance. Few people have been FORCED to eat at McDonalds in order to keep jobs. The same can't be said of Windows. CD's were already an open protocol relative to Sony's minidisc... It seems to me that this shows that Windows would become better instead of your claims.

    ON THE OTHERHAND - lets say the goverment makes Microsoft give the source to other companies. Well great - then those companies' software for WINDOWS will be better! So Windows becomes an even more attractive enviorment!

    Whatever..

    IMHO, why not bring hardware manufacutures into this and force them to develop non-Microsoft platform drivers. "If you include Windows 95/NT Drivers then you must include Linux/BeOS drivers." Same thing with support people, OEMs, networking, etc...

    Yeah, its not MS's fault! Lets blame the fscking OEMs! MS was doing good right? The damn OEMs are what caused this, right? All that the DOJ and the OEMs are are evil entities who want to stop innovation.

    Fair ground is what we need. Microsoft is on a mountain. If we can't lower the mountain, the at least raise us up to that height. :-)

    MS is impregnable, so lets worship it!

    Thanks for your FUD, makes me feel better!
  • If this guy is really a low-level employee at M$, you can bet he'll be looking for work tomorrow morning.
  • Corporations don't have the same constitutional protections (which is usually what Supreme Court cases are about) that individuals do.

    Yes they do. Witness the tobacco industry claims that limiting their advertising infringes their freedom of speech.

    I'm not sure who wrote the law that made corporations legally equivalent to individuals, but I'd love to give 'em a swift kick in the ass.

  • In the U.S., there may be no Constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy

    Perhaps this is a good time to point out that contrary to what many people (esp. congress and law professors, it seems) believe, the fact that this right is not spelled out does not mean it does not exist.

    The ninth amendment:
    The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  • The problem I have with this (and I will say up front you know more about it than I do) is that as you say, it is supposed to be a financial distinction. However, it is frequently used outside that context. When a company gets caught outright lying to consumers and defends it as exercising their freedom of speech as guaranteed in the Constitution (as seems to happen fairly regularly), I think we've gone beyond anything you're talking about in your post. In practice, it also seems to happen that corporations are given individual protections, but are exempt from individual responsibilities.

    I think that for most of the things you've outlined, it is not necessary to make a corporation an individual. For instance, instead of saying that corporations have all the rights and protections that individuals have, you could create a law than simply states that in the case of liability the company is responsible, not it's officers (which I'm sure is probably how it all started). The rest should not automatically follow, but it seems in our system that it does.

    I should point out that I'm not really taking exception to (or even necessarily disagreeing with) anything you've said, but I do think the current system is broken. Whether it's in concept or implementation I could not really say.

  • the appellate courts have been much more friendly to MS's innovations , such as ignoring a consent decree and allowing the making IE part of the OS .

    Realistically, it probably has always been a fall back strategy to lose the case and win on appeal.

    [ Not original ideas, but I thought a reminder is in order. ]
  • Gates and Co. are a _lot_ more like Nixon and Co. than Clinton is. Clinton seems to be some kind of fool. Both the Nixon Cabinet, and the Gates Cabinet, were and are incredibly arrogant and dangerous criminals with the morals of scorpions.
  • ...like the truth ;)
  • Let the stock go down and make money on it's fall, buy the stock at it's depressed value and hope it goes back up?

    In that case, he could be liable for insider trading. I'd be looking pretty close at who is trading MS Stock these days.
  • Posted by stodge:

    make that on the whole site and I would agree.
      • In both cases it was a choice between Bad and Worse. I voted Bad.
    • hehe. A pragmatist. That's how I feel, too, unfortunately.

    Vote for a third party that more closely aligns with your views. You won't win, but your consience will be clear. Kill the two-party system that tricks people into thinking that just because you agree with someone on one thing that you have to agree with them on everything else too. This us vs them mentality will be the end of us all. Unless more people vote their consience instead of fearing a 'throw away' vote. (The only reason it's 'throw away' is because everyone else is just as scared as you.)

  • Whether or not Clinton had extramarital sex, and whether or not he lied about such has ZERO impact on my life. None.

    On the other hand, whether or not Gates can continue to use unfair practices that force me to have to deal with Windows crap *does* affect me.
  • Uhm - wouldn't perjery charges, if they were to be applied, have to wait until after the original trial is over?
  • The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution ends up meaning that you are never required to tell the truth in court if doing so would implicate you. (You can't testify against yourself). Thus Perjury is probably only enforcable when you are a third-party witness who is lying - like a friend of the accused, or an expert witness.
  • ...niceties like relevant facts and arguments. The anti-Clinton folks spout words like "perjury" and "obstruction of justice". But in a real trial, prosecutors would have had a lot of trouble getting a conviction. Not to mention that an attempt to hide an affair with a consenting adult does not pass the standard of being a "High Crime or Misdemeanor". The Republicans were simply desperate to get a conviction from Starr's gigantically expensive sting operation - the hysterics showed again and again in their "impassioned" speeches.

    The Nixon Administration engaged in several heinous acts, and even had manpower specifically devoted to them (your tax dollars at work... stealing psychologists' confidential files... finding inventive money-laundering strategies...). There was support from both parties to impeach and remove Nixon from office, both because of the heinousness and the fact that the citizenry had begun to think he was lower than a snake. If more Merkins could compare 1969-1974 to the Clinton years, I think we'd have less of the false bleatings about the current mess.

    I'd really, really rather just lurk, but I'm extremely sick and tired of these rote bleatings against the Prez. Starr searched high and low, dug up nearly every rock... and found nothing but some trivial, irrelevant "charges"... for now. Maybe he can find some evidence of Clinton shoplifting a pack of chewing gum in Hot Springs in 1959 - I believe there's a team of investigators questioning the shopkeeper today.

    Disclaimer: I voted for Clinton. Twice. In both cases it was a choice between Bad and Worse. I voted Bad.

    Can we please go back to flaming MS?

    --

  • Lessee,
    -Clinton collected many FBI files on his enemies
    -He illegally took foreign campaign contributions from countries like China in exchange for favors (can you say "Most Favored Nation Status"?).
    -He has always been pretty anti-military, but calls air strikes whenever he gets in hot water.
    -He destroy the lives of innocent citizens for stupid political pay-offs (Travel Office, Billy Dale)

    None of this matters, because "He feels our pain", unlike those big, bad, Republican bullys

    None of this matters because the Independent Prosecutor(s) failed to prove any of these allegations (allegations, not facts) to be worthy of our attention. BTW, the War Powers Act allows any Prez to call air strikes, with some strings attached; Clinton broke no laws in that regard.

    --

  • But all the Jane Does (and Paula Joneses) have been unreliable witnesses, and the fact that they have been used as a weapon against Clinton to the point that his private affair with Ms Lewinsky became a public joke

    Should continue: "...should show you that this is more a witch-hunt or bloodless coup attempt than a quest for the 'truth' or the 'facts'".

    --

  • If the charges and the context are bogus, the perjury is just "perjury". At the very beginning of the thread I said that a in real live court of law, there would be trouble getting a conviction. At this point, it's just misleading and uncooperative statements (or even lies) in a videotaped deposition - but not perjury. When I see the indictment, maybe I'll start believing. Pundits and the public are not judge and jury.

    --

  • That ain't all. Nixon was the one who took us off the gold standard too.
  • An attempt to investigate Reagan failed because the Senate gave ollie North imunity for anything he did. Then Ollie North fell on the sword and said that Reagan did nothing, knew nothing.

    The truth? How can I know, I'm not God.

    Those who investigated Clinton didn't give immunity until they were sure of what they would get. They didn't count on polititians deciding that the right thing was less important then a vote for their peers in the Senate.

    PS, I should remind you at this time that there are also many people today who belive that Nixon did no wrong and should not have been forced to resign. Those who are defending Clinton look just as foolish too me.

  • >One action...two results... Business as usual for the Prez. Let's Roast Microsoft.

    Yes, but Clinton only screwed one person...
  • sure has ol' bg's ass in his cross-hairs. Pull the trigger, David! Hehe. Not that I'm biased, or anything. Just an observation.
  • When this suit was first filed, I didn't think the DOJ had much of a chance. They were going on and on about the Netscape thing when it was really just a symptom of the real problems. I think the DOJ educated itself pretty quickly on the other aspects of Microsoft's business tactics and learned from it's previous mistakes. Number one, make sure you get some people who understand the technology to review what you're going to present in court so that you don't end up looking stupid and Microsoft can't play games with technical jargon. Number two, don't believe a word that comes out of Redmond. They screwed the DOJ with the consent decree, and I think the DOJ didn't want to let that happen again. Overall, I think they are doing a rather amazing job of tearing through the layers of BS that make up the depositions of the Microsoft execs.

  • Actually, someone (former MS employee I believe) has already accused MS of destroying evidence. I wonder if anything will come of it after the trial is over.

  • I don't think they'll want him to write "Zen and the Art of Monopoly Maintenance" anymore. :)

  • True. Much of the evidence is still unreleased. Microsoft has managed to keep alot of things under wraps. The evidence against Microsoft could be even greater than what we've seen. Then there's the reeeaaaallllly bad things that they managed to destroy rather than let the DOJ get their hands on it. I love a good conspiracy. :)

  • I wouldn't give them much of a chance at winning on appeal. They've even admitted things that could get the appellate court's decision on the IE integration issue (the one that overturned Judge Jackson's preliminary injunction) overturned. With so much evidence against them and so many damning admissions and lack of credibility of the witnesses, I wouldn't be holding my breath for an appeal win.

  • Finally, keep in mind that in the end the trial bears some relationship to the law and the legal definitions of things like "monopoly" and "coercion". The judge may be laughing his head off at ...

    That is true. It is, however, important to keep in mind, that nobody likes to be treated as an idiot, judges are no exception. There's also the logical conclusion that if a defendant lies, they have something to hide. While I doubt that a judge would find against MS based only on that, it does lend credability to the DOJ case.

    As far as the problems MS is having with witnesses and coaching, it's easy to get tripped up when you don't believe what you're saying.

  • Hmm, lets use the logic of your last sentence.

    Do you know anyone that has never lied? I mean even about the most trivial issue, like if you ate candy before supper or not?

    If you can't find anyone that is completely free from guilt then noone can be president. Because how can you trust anyone on "more important matters" when you can't trust them with trivial issues like eating candy before supper?

    Btw, according to the definition of Jones' lawyers he didn't have a "sexual relationship" with Lewinsky. IANAL but I trust Johnnie Cochran on this one.

    /mill
  • It wasn't. At the start, both the President and Vice President were under investigation. If both had been removed from office, the next person to take office would have been a Republican.

    The investigations and trials had zero to do with anything Bill Clinton had done. It was a "legal" way for the Republicans to seize power without having to bother with elections.

    Once in power, I'm sure they would have dug up some emergency provision which would allow them the full two years of office without ever having to rely on an the votes of people.

    With such a precident, any subsequently-elected Democrat could undoubtably have been unseated with relative ease, giving the Republicans an effective dictatorship.

    This wasn't about a crime, supposed or real. This was a carefully-planned power-play. A legal coup. Which is quite possibly why Kenneth Starr is, himself, now being investigated. (I doubt they'd have bothered, if it were for the reasons given. Too expensive for any possibly pay-back.)

  • Why not?

    It's certainly true that both the President and Vice President were under investigation.

    It's also true that both had been targetted repeatedly by the Republicans from the point in which the Republicans gained control of both houses.

    It's also true that the next in line was a Republican.

    It's also true that Kenneth Starr is, himself, under investigation for his conduct during the investigation of the President and Vice President.

    Sometimes, you have to have a healthy degree of mistrust about the political party in opposition, as well as the party the President belongs to. Politics, in America, is about mistrust.

  • Actually, not quite. IANAL--but I believe that if I was in court for a traffic violation and the opposing lawyer asked me whether I had ever gone to Africa and I lied, they could only nail me for perjury if they could prove that going to Africa had something to do with whether I was driving 50 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. (not that I would lie about it but we're being hypothetical here ;) ).

    Daniel
  • Doesn't the phrase non-event also remind you of _1984_'s "unpersons." When the Party killed off someone they became an unperson, which meant that if someone stopped showing up to work, you were to take it not only that they were dead, but that they never existed in the first place. MS would have us react that way to their idiocy.

    "We here at Big Brother need to watch everyone" -e-mail from Bill Gates

    "I'm currently managing the Big Brother watching project, Mr. Gates, and I can assure you that we are already watching everyone." -e-mail from Daniel Rosen

    "Your Honor, I can confidently say that Big Brother is not nor ever has been watching you." -testimony from Daniel Rosen

  • By your definition of faith (which is pretty straight forward), faith is totally antithetical to rationalist thought. It means classifying certain issues as impervious to investigation and experimentation.

    The Bible defines pi as 3.0. The Bible has a lot of stuff in genesis that anathema to modern biology and biochemistry. The Bible contains stuff about the "sun standing still." It's closer to a Ptolemaic than a Keplerian view of the solar system.

    Now, if the bible is to taken as "literally true", much of modern science goes out the window, because acceptance of the bible is based on faith, not reason, and faith trumps reason. There goes science.

    I suppose that the bible can be accepted as allegory, but then, it's been wrong on so many things...

    I know, I'm damned to hell :)
  • As long as it does'nt translate to we're religious fanatics ...

    No, that was before, during the whole Catholic-Protestant thing.

    There are freaks and morons in all countries, just larger countries have larger numbers of them. Sheesh.

  • Lying, commiting perjury, making a mockery of our justice system. Unforunately, these are acts US citizens are getting used to. A lot of people are "bored" with the Bills' acts, but you can't be! Freedom is worth fighting for, and that means not letting powerful people get away with this.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying blow up a building, but write letters to congress and senators. Tell them you are sick of people abusing our justice system. Society will get much, much worse if people stop caring.

    My $0.02 (+ tax)
  • Do you kiss your mother with those liberal lips.
  • Of course, Microsoft has put a completely different spin on things.

    Microsoft says that Daniel Rosen was "left virtually unchallenged his testimony that Microsoft was seeking a positive, strategic relationship with Netscape in 1995 and did not attempt to force Netscape to agree to an illegal division of markets at a meeting on June 21, 1995"

    Then they continue to trash Boies. They claim that Boies's tactics were ineffectual, which is not what I got from the Washington Post article.

    http://www.microsoft.com/presspa ss/trial/default.htm [microsoft.com]
  • I would think anywhere from $500/hr to $1500/hr for a lawyer at that level. $250/hr would be the absolute low end. Almost as much as a good sendmail administrator charges.

    sPh
  • IMHO, part of what is happening in the trial is due to the general level of contempt that high tech people (not to say West Coast high tech people [or Northwest Coast]) feel for government in general and Washington DC in particular. Let's face it: Microsoft hires a lot of _very_ smart people. They never expected that they might encounter people as smart as they are, and possibly sneakier, in DC. My guess would be that Microsoft's lawyers tried to prepare the witnesses for what was going to happen, and were rejected. I just can't imagine that someone in the Microsoft executive suite could ever believe that he could be out-thought on technical issues by a lawyer; an IBM lawyer in particular.

    Then there is the issue of internal belief systems. I have come to believe that Microsoft insiders in many cases truely do not know how their products actually work in the real world, or how their company is perceived outside Redmond. I continue to maintain that the botched videotape was just an extreme example of DLL hell, and the Microsoft people couldn't bring themselves to believe that it could happen to them and proceeded to 'patch' things a little. Just what they do every day of the week, and look where it has gotten them...

    Finally, keep in mind that in the end the trial bears some relationship to the law and the legal definitions of things like "monopoly" and "coercion". The judge may be laughing his head off at the Microsoft witnesses. He may come to believe that Microsoft set out to fsck Netscape. But that doesn't mean he (or the appeals court) will necessarily rule that there is any violation of the law that the government can/should take notice of. The daily spectacle isn't the whole story.

    Now, I doubt that Microsoft is actually pursuing a strategy of releasing damaging evidence and saying , "Look - with all our monopoly power, that is the worst we could do. Just what the rest of the industry does when it has the chance", as some have suggested. Devious, but too dangerous.

    Still, I do have to wonder about those bonuses for the Microsoft legal team. Does Bill ever take stock options away?

    sPh
  • I'd choose Dickinson over Philadelphia...or even Elko for that matter.....



    I'm still amazed that French folks think that language is static. There is a plethora of Latin in French...but somehow, they became French. God forbid that any English words get borrowed! Dumb! If there is a good idea, use it, not using it is so juvinile. If ideas are not borrowed and used, the language will suffer linguistic atrophy, if it hasn't already.
  • From My non US point Of view I think the trial on bill gate is much more interresting. I france we never you'd have get on trail for what your president made. I even think many of us you'd have say it was ok.

    The problem in the US is that people lack some kind of lessons on politics in school. Something
    Which is really well provided here in france. For US what matters is what the president does for the
    country not who he plays with .... :)
  • Boies got him to out and out admit that they wanted Netscape to not compete with them- this alone is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

    Rosen's the last nail in the coffin, I think...

    Microsoft is so toast it's not even funny- and with the court antics, they're going to not win any appeals either.
  • ...but I thought the Clinton trial was about perjury
    and obstruction of justice? Or do the french
    condone that behavior from their public officials
    too?
  • socialized healthcare.

    At least our currency isn't in free-fall. Those are big words coming from the "Brazil of the North"...

    ;)
  • >But in a real trial, prosecutors would have had a >lot of trouble getting a conviction.

    So what's your point? They didn't convict him, you know...

    I also love the "Nixon" defense... "He didn't rape the Constitution as badly as Nixon!" That's a winner.

    I voted for Harry Brown, in case you think I'm some rabid Dittohead.
  • Well, from my point of view, I don't mind what Clinton did. So I could care less if he gets off (take that anyway you want).
    I hate Bill Gates. He's an ass. I want to see him fry. So, I want to see him and his company go down... they've done things that I think really *do* hurt people.
  • > -Clinton collected many FBI files on his enemies

    Clinton didn't do this, one of the lower level flunkies in the White house did. I doubt whether Clinton ever knew about this. In any case, Ken Starr was not able to find any illegal acts despite years of investigation.

    > -He illegally took foreign campaign ontributions from countries like China in exchange for favors (can you say "Most Favored Nation Status"?).

    Because of loopholes in the laws that were added by REPUBLICANS when the law was passed in the 70's, these contributions were legal. I think that they were inappropriate, but they were legal.

    > -He has always been pretty anti-military, but calls air strikes whenever he gets in hot water.

    Being pretty anti-military???? He just proposed the largest peacetime military spending increase since Reagan. And he has continued to keep military spending at 85% of Cold War levels, despite the fact that the Cold War has been over for years. I would love to see a President that is truly anti-military, willing to stand up to the charge of "soft on defense spending" to spend money on things that are truly good for the country. He wants to increase the defense budget 110 billion dollars, but one or two billion cannot be spared to rebuild school buildings.

    > -He destroy the lives of innocent citizens for stupid political pay-offs (Travel Office, Billy Dale)

    Unlike other politicians? Unlike Ken Starr? Unlike many who were attacked by the Reagan Administration for their opposition to the government's Central America policies? Unlike Republican attacks on people like Anita Hill? This is nothing new in modern American politics. Both sides do it. It is despicable, but not impeachable.

    These things do matter, but the upshot of most of this is to discredit the entire system, not just Republicans or Democrats. Clinton is a product of a system that uses power to support the rich, at the expense of others, and uses cheap moralizing and demagoguery to destroy its enemies.

    Eric
  • Laws are important. In the U.S., (...)

    You should rephrase this as: Lawyers are important in the U.S.

  • In France there's a trial going on right now of former ministers who deliberately allowed AIDS tainted
    blood to be used in transfusions to protect a French company while that company got its AIDS blood test
    together.


    The three ministries in question are accused of delaying the introduction of AIDS blood testings. Whether they did it or not, one thing is known for sure: the tests were used in France before many other countries anyway (including Germany and Switzerland, don't know about the U.S.)

  • There's a reason only 6% of French homes have computers: France is a corrupted, backward, bureacratic, crusty tourist shop.


    We'll talk when you'll have the figures in both countries on crime, illitteracy, and say, tuberculosis. And pregnant teenagers, while we're at it. And police abuse.


    Mind you, I don't even have a 'pooter nor a teevee at home. But I have a (digital) cellphone.

  • M$ witneses:

    Trip...stumble....WHOOPS!.....trip....stumble... .WHOOPS!.....trip....stumble....WHOOPS!

    It's nice to see the DOJ lawyers bitch-slapping every single M$ employee taking the stand. If I were this guy Rosen, I would tell M$ to fuck off, hand in my resignation and turn against them. A "low level employee???" OUCH! How's that for back stabbing?
  • Technically, it isn't perjury if the lie has no
    effect on the outcome of the trial. This is why
    Clinton had to settle Clinton v. Jones before her
    appeal sent it back to court, it was the entire
    legal figleaf he needed to avoid the perjury
    charge.

    However, what you described sure DOES sound like
    contempt of court - and removing the neck brace
    sure looks like evidence of fraud.
  • This post could get ridiculously long, since this is a topic near and dear to my heart. I'll try to keep it short...

    I think it is a mistake to compare Open Source with communism or even socialism. At least in implementation, communism (and socialism to a lesser degree) tends to have a central bureaucracy that decides how all resources will be distributed. This is extremely inefficient and prone to error. You end up with an abundance of things that people don't want and shortages of things that people want. Why, because it takes time to convince a bureaucracy that they "got it wrong." What ever "it" is. Especially because you have some central authority that knows what's best for everyone, even if everyone happens to disagree.

    Another problem with communism is that the central authority is forcing its subjects to redistribute their wealth (goods, service, skills, resources, etc.) based on the central authority's desires, not the producer's desires. This is the point you made, it's against human nature to work hard for someone else's benefit.

    Open Source is a completely different beast. The argument about human nature doesn't come directly into play. The reason is that contributers are working on something they care about, directly. Open Source is not an abstract goal (scrubbing toilets for the good of humanity). Open Source is created largely for the benefit of the person contributing. Why does Apache exist? Because its authors wanted a good Web Server, period. Why share it? There are probably too many reasons to list, but I'll give the usual short list: Pride, recognition, and as a gift. After all, greed is only one facet of human nature. But, the key point is that the contributer selects work that is beneficial for their own personal reasons.

    As far as efficiency, Open Source is efficient in a mind bogglingly chaotic manner. The products are generated in direct response to a need. It really reminds me of evolution. Several products may be generated for the same or similar needs. The products compete for all sorts of resources; contributers, users, distribution channels and good old fashion "mind share." Products that can get adequate resources flourish and evolve, products that can't stagnate.

    It's late, hopefully my ramblings make some semblance of sense.

  • The way I look at this, MS hires a LOT of people. They are huge. So chances are they will have a lot of smart people. More than the average for eligible programmers? I don't think so.

    As far as their software goes. In their market, mindless advertising, FUD and creeping featureitis go a long way to selling units. A lot further than good programming unfortunately.
  • See the same story in InfoWorld [infoworld.com].

    I must admit though, even I'm getting tired of this stuff. Pretty sad. Sort of like the Y2K bug - I just wish we could get it over with and get on with our lives.

  • I can't defend the president's apparent perjury, nor his delaying tactics. I wish that he had just from the start said something like, "yeah, I shagged her. I shagged her rotten, baby!"

    It would have saved us all some money and we would have been spared this embarassment. However, I get really angry with the hypocritical bastards who masterminded this whole thing to begin with. The fact that the president answered the questions untruthfully is shameful. What's unforgivable is that the questions were asked to begin with. Especially by people like that multiply-remarried-fat-fuck gingrich. There was no interest in justice. All they wanted was a political lynching, and the dems would have done it to a republican if they'd been in similar situation.

    I love my country, but sometimes it's embarassing to live here. Sorta like that love-hate relationship one has with one's fambly.
  • Regardless of whether or not Clinton did actually perjure himself, what he was accused of wasn't an impeachable offence. Remember, impeachable offences are defined by the Constitution, not Jerry Falwell or Rush Limbaugh or Joe Sixpack.

    If you don't like the definition, then by all means lobby your representative bureaucrats to get the Constitution changed. Otherwise, play within the same set rules that the rest of us americans do.

    This was not a normal trial, folks. It was a PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT TRIAL! The rules are different because the outcome could involve the abrupt removal of our country's president. That is not something to be done lightly.

    I'm not defending President Clinton. I am, however defending the part of our Constitution that protects our government from upheaval over trivial (in the grand scheme of things) things.

    I'm frustrated by a lot of what goes on in D.C., but in this case, I think they (the Senate) did the right thing.
  • It's time for the Chewbacca defense. :)
  • Look, they have what, 2000 developers, plus at least as many marketing droids? Consider how much innovation they get out of that investment. It's pretty obvious that only Billy is allowed to think, everyone else has to carry out his plans. Imagien M$ without Billy. Balmer and these other flunkies have learnt to parrot his arrogance but not his brains.

    So this is just their arrogance acrrying thru. Remember that comment abotu the video, about version 1.0 not so hot, but version 2.0 is better? Well jack, that's not how the legal system works. They are arrogant slimeball coward bullies and this trial just shows how incapable of thinking any of their idiots are.

    I especially like how Rosen was characterized as "a low level employee" -- well duh, who picked him as a M$ witless^H^H^H^Hness anyway? But I bet he becomes pretty low level pretty soon...

    --
  • You don't know the Japanese word either... it's "Hara Kiri". Harry Carey was a sports announcer or something ;)
    .
  • "The Feminists drove Senator Bob Packwood out of the Senate for merely kissing women who did not want it, yet the ignore what Clinton did which is far worse by their own standards."

    No it's not! You must be one warped individula if you think that consensual sex and kissing someone who does want to be kissed are EVEN the same thing.... what Packwood did is not only wrong but illegal.
  • Do I need to spell out the difference between a no-fly-zone and an invasion? Let's see, here's a hint, one involves bombing civilians and the other doesn't...
    .
  • Well... except for Netscape... but at least that's "open source" (assuming Free Software == GPL)
    .
  • Not to detract from the considerable cross-examination skills of Mr. Boies, I must say that it is relatively easy to chew these people up due to the fact that they are FLAT OUT LYING. M$'s problem is that they didn't get their stories straight before they went to court. Boies is having a field day with the internal inconsistencies alone.
  • Heaven:

    The Germans are mechanics, the English are bankers, the French are cooks, and the Italians are lovers.

    Hell:

    The French are mechanics, the Italians are bankers, the English are cooks, and the Germans are lovers.
  • They're being polite.
  • Laws are important. In the U.S., if you break the law, you are punished. That's the theory. Now it seams, if you control the law enforcement, Clinton demonstrated that the law doesn't apply to you.

    I don't know about France, but the law is important to democracy in the U.S. These lessons are taught extensively in the U.S., but once you graduate and read news reports, those lessons don't seem to apply.

    ~afniv
    "Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
    "We could be happy if the air was as pure as the beer"
  • This is basically a Pro Bono case for Boies. After the trial is over he'll have his pick of kickass high-paying jobs because of the publicity he's generating for himself. You have to admit that he is kicking the shit out of Microsoft. I hope that he's on the Good Guys' side again next time.
  • "The only this this case is going to do is possibly make Windows a WORSE product than it already is"

    How??? I suppose adding hooks to the OS to allow MS (and only MS) applications to outperform 3rd party apps is a *good* thing? Or how about making the internet part of the OS to help squash competators? One could argue that by separating the OS and MS-Apps, the kernel would be cleaner, and the OS would be more robust. Just think about how much cleaner the OS might become if the OS folks actually worked on the core OS and the application folks just used the system APIs that the OS folks published. It would probably result in a much cleaner, more robust OS and a Win32 API that didn't change every 4 months.

  • Partisan or not, I think Clinton was on trial because everywhere they looked in his life something was dirty. Everytime they squeezed some piece of his life, mud came out. Therefore, they assumed, there must be something illegal going on here that we can prove.

    Of course, proof became a very frustrating thing to find. (It's amazing the number people that were to be questioned that met with fatal accidents or killed themselves.)

    However it was motivated, I think the trial was a result of just trying to pin something that would stick onto a man that, based on their appraisal, surely must be guilty of a whole bunch of things. Sort of an Al Capone thing.

    Sex was just a convenient/inconvenient label to put on it that was able to further split the issue down party lines. If this had been a jury trial I wonder how it would have gone?

    In the end, public opinion was formed more by just being tired of hearing about it than anything else. I have friends, both demicrat and republican, that didn't want him impeached just so we didn't have to see/read about it anymore. It really is sad what the media has done to the public.

    As for lying being acceptable under certain circumstances, well, I think that's a poor excuse. There are much better ones. Or maybe we should ammend the oath to be, "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, unless it's something I don't want my wife to know about."
  • "Non-event" seems to be Microshaft's term for "something happened that we don't want you to notice".

    Is there a web page or something somewhere of classic MSspeak? "Low-level employee", "non-event", "innovation", "competition" ... how many words has MS tried to redefine?

  • Microsoft did try to get another 6 month extension in their initial dragged the trial onto infinity stragety. The judge denied that motion, and here we are.

  • DOJ is getting the legal bargin of the century. David Boies' normal billing rate is $500+ / hour. Of course when you considered that his cases have billions of dollars at stake, $500/hour is a bargin.

  • I once sat in a trial where Boies was a character witness. It is revealed that the top anti-trust attorney usually billed @ $500+ / hour. From another news source, Boies supposedly is billing only $33.33 / hour.

    From his law firm's accountant's POV, I would cringe at his billing rate to DOJ. He does have a law firm to support, and bringing in large billable account is the responsibility of the senior partner. Even at $500 / hour, DOJ is getting a good value. @ $33.33 / hour, DOJ is essentially getting his service free.
  • Woohoo!! I checked out the site, and did a search for "Microsoft trial" on their main page...guess what got spit back at me?

    "Microsoft VBScript compilation error '800a03e9'
    Out of memory"

    Looks like even their programs don't remember M$ doing anything wrong ;p
  • Well, their take is that Windows is 100% flawless, so, why shouldnt they spout that they are on the top of the trial and the government is floundering.

    As for the stock, it amkes folks too much money, and greed is always a major factor in things.
  • If every man who lied under oath about wether he cheated on his wife or now was charged with perjury there would be 100 times more perjury cases before the courts. Normally people are not charged with obstruction of justice or perjury when they lie about things like that.

    Just look at the DOJ vs. Microsloth case. If everyone who lied on the stand was charged with perjury, then they'd just escort the Microsloth execs out the side door instead of letting them walk out the back. They're all lying. Most of them are proven liars when they get up to go. None are charged.

    The only reason Clinton was charged with anything is because of the public outcry.

    Bunch of American Whiners. I'm Canadian. About a year ago, our Prime Minister decked some guy who got in his face at a public gathering of some kind. We applauded. Good for the Prime Minister and good for the loser.

    That's why Canadians rock and Americans are sissies. That's why we kicked your butts in the war of 1812.

    Have a good one. And next time your President gets a little on the side - shut the heck up. He's running a country you know.
  • Looks like MS has been doing a rather poor job of defending themselves in court while the DoJ systematically nukes each of their witnesses. This is especially odd when you consider that in the US the more money you have, the more "right" you are. At any rate, I wonder if it's just stupidity on MS part, or if they have something clever up their sleves.

    Then again, maybe I am just too cynical, and it merely proves that, afterall, there is justice in this world.

    Nah.

    It can't be that easy.

  • They probably just figure that if they really lose, they can always appeal and drag the case out for ten years.
    Or they've already paid the judge say a hundred million dollars and are laughing their butts off. Hey.. Never know. It's America, afterall.
  • Well, it's clear to me that MS is just approaching the trial the same way they approach writing software.

    They just rushed the beta version to court thinking it was a finished product, and that they could just debug it later.
  • I don't know if this is in this version of the story, but in the Reutur's (however that's spelled) version, it had something like "He said that that when Microsoft says 'owning' the market, they mean finding a way to make it work better." I laughed at that one.
  • OOOOOOOOOOOOOH MAN. I can't believe this crap. Is it so hard to understand that God is just a trip, the result of WAY too many of the wrong chemicals in your brain? Dammit. I don't want to believe in a floating abstraction.

    God doesn't exist, and you should know that damn well by now. Your refuse to think rationally, instead insisting on believing with my heart ( a pretty dumb organ - the equivalent of a car with an onboard computer of thinking with its gas tank) is only to cover up the fact that you deep inside also know that God can't possibly exist. If the Revelation is personally truthful to you, it only means that you're so stupid you can't look at yourself reasonally and understand that the fact that nothing will be able to shake your faith in it is nothing but a poorly disguised form of childish denial. Grow up.


    Peace,

    --
    Reverend Jerry Falwell

    "Hey man! Let's grab the car, go pick up some chicks and go back to my place!"
    - Don't Ask Don't Teletubby Tinky-Winky
  • getting off the subject of Bill... ( who probably would like to think he is god ) I think the first persons comment was just stating that how are we to believe that we have a firm understanding of what god is? I know that man likes to think he can put god in a glass jar.. and define what he she it is.. but can we really? I dont think we can... I also dont think we can say that one religion is better than another.. or that these people are saved .. while these are not... i could go on and on.. but I will not...
  • Get rid of the Electoral Vote!!!!
  • I totally agree. Looking at it from an outsiders point of view (I'm in Australia) I have seen that all Bill really tried to do was not uncover an affair that would ruin his marriage. It doesn't affect the US in the slightest.
  • Maybe I can't read properly here but wasn't the article on the Anti-Trust case with Bill GATES and Micro$lop? How the hell did Billy Boy Clinton get into this conversation? Who cares?? Bill did some pornographic stuff with a cigar.... GET OVER IT PEOPLE!!!!
  • Actually not to take the attention away from MS needing to be destroyed but the US government seems to be the ones using the most Big Brother tactics on the Internet today (e.g. COPA, CDA, et al).
  • Um actually if you lied under oath for a traffic ticket... 99% of the time they would just prove you were lying and then be done with it the truth having been shown. The other 1% accounts for the anal retentive judges who follow the letter of the law and view themselves as some version of Judge Dredd without a gun or kevlar who would simply fine you $100 or something. If we were to process everyone who lied on the stand and got caught for perjury do you realize how many murderers theives and other rapscallions would go free or have to wait years upon years for due process.
  • Come on every country between Central America and the Middle East can have our old technology why can't China? It's not fair to pick and choose who get's a chance to blow us up.
  • As the saying goes "Heaven is a place where the British deal with the politics and the French handle the cooking. Hell is a place where these rolls are reversed." Do I really need to say any more?
  • Microsoft is trying to present itself as a company too stupid to create a monopoly. They're hoping Judge Jackson rules in their favor by deciding that they can't possibly be a monopoly because their management is too incompetent to create one.
  • Without Linux waiting in the wings, this trial wouldn't matter anyways. Say M$ lost, would we all get to buy what Macs?, Sun workstations?, OS/2?. Besides, even in losing, M$ can delay their slap on the wrist until 2002. The main good thing to come out of this trial, in my opinion, is that once again we see powerful people who we allow to rule us for the pitiable creatures that they are.
  • This gives new meaning to the phrase "hoist on one's petard," doesn't it? And Microsoft spread out a whole minefield of them. Poor Bill.

  • fool!


    If the president had boasted about it over breakfast, then there wouldn't have been any perjury and impeachment trial as he wouldn't have said that he hadn't done it!
  • Yo, Canuck ud da Noith, (I speak Great Northern Barbarian too...), If the President had said "Yeah, I did, so what?" I would have been on the Starr bashing wagon too... But he LIED!!!! In court, to Congress, and to the American people on TV! If I lie to a judge, I go to jail. The man needs his 6-to 18 months just like anyone else. (and if all Canadiennes are like you, ya wimp, then no wonder the alleged country is trying to fragment and failing even at that!)

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.

Working...