Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Microsoft News

Microsoft Tries To Prevent Further Discovery 178

Posted by kdawson
from the cying-a-river dept.
An anonymous reader notes the considerable irony in Microsoft asking for relief from further discovery in the Windows Vista Capable debacle. This is the lawsuit that was recently granted class-action status, and Microsoft wants the wheels of justice to stop while it appeals that designation. It's easy to see why Microsoft wants to prevent further digging around in their and their OEMs' email archives, with stories like this one from the NYTimes (registration may be required) revealing Redmond's highly embarrassing internal emails to a mass audience.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Tries To Prevent Further Discovery

Comments Filter:
  • by rongage (237813) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @06:06PM (#22694838)

    IANAL and all that....

    Generally, to protect your email from discovery, write an email retention policy (timestamp on implemention date), and follow it without exception. If your policy says you delete all emails after 30 days - do it. Up until you are served with a discovery request, anything you have destroyed as a part of your retention policy is no problem. Of course, once you get that discovery request and the matching "you are being sued" notice, do not destroy a thing.

    Check with YOUR lawyer before you rely on this foolish advice

  • by gozu (541069) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @06:11PM (#22694868) Journal
    Ack, bugmenot is not working. Here is a link to the article that doesn't require registration.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/nytimes/080309/1194753587951.html?.v=4 [yahoo.com]
  • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @06:22PM (#22694896)
    The class is not limited to current members (who have already signed up as being pissed). Further digging and media time also tells those people that were suckered but did nothing that there is a class action and brings them into the action.
  • why stop now? (Score:3, Informative)

    by nguy (1207026) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @06:41PM (#22695062)
    It's just getting interesting.
  • Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)

    by zotz (3951) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @06:49PM (#22695140) Homepage Journal
    "So the million people that bought Eee PCs are all above average?"

    I guess I wasn't clear enough. People seem to be taking it as if I were making one of the claims in my post. No, those are conflicting claims I see windows supporters or linux detractors making. I say they can't have it both ways.

    all the best,

    drew
    http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
  • by belmolis (702863) <billposer@alum.m[ ]edu ['it.' in gap]> on Sunday March 09, 2008 @06:52PM (#22695166) Homepage

    If your company is publicly held, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposes strict requires on document retention, including email. You can't just adopt a policy and stick to it. If your policy is not in compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley, you will be in big trouble should anyone sue you and ask for email or other documents that should have been retained.

  • Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)

    by beav007 (746004) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @08:00PM (#22695676) Journal

    I don't see how being unable to use Aero or Windows Movie Maker can be made subject to a lawsuit.
    The issue is that all the advertising for Vista was built around the "Wow starts now" and the Vista experience, which was Aeroglass. So the customer buys a cheap laptop with Vista pre-loaded and a shiny "Vista Capable" sticker on it. They get it home to find that it runs like a one-legged dog, and is Vista Home Basic, which doesn't have Aeroglass.

    It's deceptive, if not outright false advertising.

    Here's a car analogy for you. Imagine a large car company starts advertising a new model of car. The ads feature a soft-top coupe with aggressive sports styling, leather trim, 19" chrome wheels, big twin turbo v12 engine, 6 speed flappy-paddle gearbox, and is capable of 200mph.

    You walk into the showroom, and the cars look like they do in the ads, or even better, but they are expensive. The salesman says "no worries" - this is the top model. There are much cheaper ones that are almost as good - you still get most of the features of the top model.

    "Great", you say. "I'll take one!"

    The salesman tells you that they are all in shipping crates out the back, so you can't look at it now, but they will deliver it to you.

    The next morning you find a new car in your driveway. It looks like a Hyundai Excel, has a 4 cylinder engine, 14" wheels with plastic hubcaps, cloth trim, and a 4 speed manual gearbox.

    You take it back to complain, but the salesman says "How did I mislead you? It has most of the features of the top model - seats, wheels, a steering wheel, seatbelts, a handbrake, lights, a horn, a gearbox, and it drives on the road. And it's capable of doing 200mph, if you can get it into a cargo plane that moves that fast..."
  • Re:ahoj (Score:2, Informative)

    by sycotic (26352) on Sunday March 09, 2008 @08:27PM (#22695838) Homepage
    Isn't that HMS [wikipedia.org]?

    Or was the Titanic really a Royal Mail Ship [wikipedia.org]?

  • Re:It's only fair (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mathinker (909784) on Monday March 10, 2008 @01:50AM (#22697528) Journal
    Maybe it has something to do with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act [wikipedia.org]?

    If you look at the section E-mail communication retention policy and storage [com.com] in an article on it at TechRepublic, it seems that SOx dictates that email needs to be retained indefinitely.
  • Re:It's only fair (Score:3, Informative)

    by gruntled (107194) on Monday March 10, 2008 @08:37AM (#22699224)
    No, SOX merely requires that the retention period be clearly stated in policy and that the retention period be "reasonable." In fact, that's stated in your link.

Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.

Working...