Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Your Rights Online

Judge Grants MS's No-Press Request 249

Posted by timothy from the staying-away-from-the-light dept.
jeffy124 writes: "We already know that Microsoft has requested to bar the media from proceedings in the anti-trust suit. Judge Kollar-Kotelly has granted that request. A 1913 law permitted public access to anti-trust proceedings, but only if the federal government were involved. Because the case no longer includes the feds, that law no longer applies, so MS has successfully closed the doors to the press and public." An anonymous reader points out this coverage at InfoWorld as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Grants MS's No-Press Request More

Judge Grants MS's No-Press Request

Comments Filter:

  • Now, if only (Score:3, Troll)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @09:08PM (#2922887)
    , so MS has successfully closed the doors to the press and public



    if only they could close the security doors on their products...

  • Who does get to know about what is going on in court. This type of trial should be public, mostly b/c of MS's history.
  • That's it! I'm packing my bags and moving to Canada. I'm now convinced that our government is in the back pocket of MS and corporate interests. Enron is just the beginning. Welcome to the end...

    ugh...

    • Re:You've got to be kidding me!!! (Score:5, Informative)

      by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@gmL ... m minus math_god> on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @09:14PM (#2922922) Homepage
      Don't overreact; the Judge had to rule on law, and that's what she did. It's not like once the cameras are barred MS will be able to do something sneaky; the state AGs are not as sympathetic to MS as the Ashcroft "Justice" Department is.
      • It's not like once the cameras are barred MS will be able to do something sneaky

        Well, I could say ``good point, it's not like Microsoft were at all subtle about raping their competitors and tying their customers' limbs to the bedposts (or was it the other way around?)'' but in reality Microsoft lose a lot of public image as people discover from reports of court proceedings just how selfish, blind and ruthless Microsoft really is (or at least, the people controlling it really are). What Microsoft has essentially gained is protection against people finding out quite so directly what they're really like.

        Now MS can make their own press releases, the AGs can make theirs, and because there are no direct quotes it looks to the public more like two approximately equal powers having a spat - spouting their opinions - and less like policemen carefully reining in the excesses of a thoroughly-proven criminal behemoth.

        Also, Bill only stopped talking long enough to change feet when he was making his video testimony, so when the next similar event arrives MS will want to sweep the results carefully under the publicity carpet.

      • Don't overreact; the Judge had to rule on law, and that's what she did. It's not like once the cameras are barred MS will be able to do something sneaky; the state AGs are not as sympathetic to MS as the Ashcroft "Justice" Department is.

        It does not appear very likely that the judge had any choice in the matter. Depositions are taken in private in all federal cases unless there is a specific requirement that they be public.

        Once Microsoft protested the state AGs were bound to request the opposite regardless of what they would otherwise have requested since they could then grandstand with the openess claim.

        Given that the state AGs are mostly political hacks and many come from states where a lot of voters work for companies that compete against Microsoft the scope for grandstanding in open depositions would have been huge. While the Federal government was running the case the state AGs had to take a back seat.

        Ashcroft on the other hand is the type of political hack who loses an election to a dead man then spends $8000 of tax payers money having the statues in his HQ covered in a Burqua.

    • The shredders are kept on idle .. waiting for the next assignment.

    • Re:You've got to be kidding me!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jimlintott ( 317783 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @09:45PM (#2923027) Homepage

      Canadian courts regularly ban the press. I for one don't disagree with this practice. Let the courts decide, there will be plenty of time for press when it's over. If there is the slightest perception of a problem with the press then shut them out.

      A little faith in your justice system is a good thing.

      • Re:You've got to be kidding me!!! (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Let's get this straight here ... Canadian courts may ban the press during the actual proceedings of a trial that covers sensitive material, but, things are made public after the trial. It is an attempt to allow a fair trial to be held.
      • If there is especially sensitive material then it is appropriate to ban the press. For example, in Australia it is illegal to report on proceedings in the Family Court, which deals with divorce and custody issues.

        But this has to be balanced with the fact that we (the US, Canada, Australia etc) are a democracy and one of the fundamental principles of democracy is the fair and open administration of justice. Having faith in the justice system can only come from regular public scrutiny, which includes press scrutiny.

        I don't agree with your suggestion to shut the press out at the "slightest perception of a problem". It's very easy for a company like Microsoft to create the perception of the problem, when this is not necessarily backed up by reality. To me, 'erring on the side of caution' entails allowing public/press access unless there is a very compelling reason not to. And by that I don't just mean the potential embarrassment of a multibillion dollar software company.

    • Re:You've got to be kidding me!!! (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Please do not come to Canada -- we've got plenty of mindless zealots of varying types here already.

      tx.

    • "That's it! I'm packing my bags and moving to Canada. I'm now convinced that our government is in the back pocket of MS and corporate interests."

      I live in Canada and I can tell you that M$ gets big money from Canadian governmental agencies. (Remember, unlike the US, the canadian gov't is the BIGGEST employer in the country.) Most if not all branches and other arms of the canadian gov't are highly dependent on MS software to run their OSs. I have never seen a job posting for a government office job position that did *not* say that MS Office proficiency was necessary! In fact, I worked last summer in a government job and the office ran totally on Windows 9x, with Office 2000, Frontpage, etc. They are so irresponsible with their money in terms of software that they go out and spend $30 on ftp client software! They have never heard of freeware!* The godsend was they they didn't use outlook.

      *Yes, I know that freeware and Free Software and different things.

    • I'm packing my bags and moving to Canada. I'm now convinced that our government is in the back pocket of [...]corporate interests

      Unlike Canada, right?

  • It funny how many weird/dumb law we have, in this case (no pun intended, lack thereof).
    What are we to do? Well What can we do. The Law is the law, and creating a law for this specific incident would be a little rediculous. Oh well You win some you lose some, unless you are a citizen, then you only lose. (Yes! not LOOSE like some of you spell it)

  • What about MSNBC (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cr@ckwhore ( 165454 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @09:12PM (#2922906) Homepage
    How about this conspiracy theorists? Does this in effect give m$ a media monopoly to cover the trial in its own self interest? Hmmm

    Somebody had to mention it.

    • Re:What about MSNBC (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Does this in effect give m$ a media monopoly to cover the trial in its own self interest?

      Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite: Microsoft asked to bar the media, and the request was granted. Since Microsoft is a media through MSNBC, now it's illegal for Microsoft to be in the courtroom. How are they going to defend their case?
    • "How about this conspiracy theorists? Does this in effect give m$ a media monopoly to cover the trial in its own self interest? Hmmm

      Somebody had to mention it."

      Someone had to mention it ... and be COMPLETELY off-base. There's Microsoft bashing, but this is just ignorant.

      NO PRESS means NO PRESS. Just because Microsoft owns part of MSNBC doesn't mean that somehow they are exempt.

  • Closed to the public? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bleckywelcky ( 518520 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @09:12PM (#2922909)


    Now, are the hearings just closed to the media, or close completely to the public. I would think that they couldn't be, and that they shouldn't be since they would be publicly involved. If so, there could be people that would attend the hearings with recording devices, and they could just anonymously release them into the public, where media producers could randomly pick them up and use them. Kind of like the undercover investigations some news sources produce.

    • Court security has been tight for a while. Doubly so since 9-11. Try getting a recording device past the guards at the courthouse.

      First, it is an obvious circumvention device.
      Second, it is an obvious terrorist device.

      Good luck getting out of that courthouse without paying bail money.
    • You can't close something to the press and keep it open for the public.

      On a philosophical level, there is a public interest in open and accountable administration of justice and press represents members of the public who can't be there in person.

      And on a practical level, individual journalists are still considered members of the public. And if a journalist can attend a hearing as a private citizen, there is nothing to stop them taking notes and filing a news story. (Of course, contempt-of-court rules would still apply in terms of what and how they report).

      Therefore the only way to prevent media coverage is to ban the public entirely, which undermines the principles of accountablity and transparency of justice.
    • You make a very good point. I don't know whether the hearings are closed to the public or not, but I've been thinking about the proliferation of small recording devices, and how useful they could be to the activist community if used properly. I would be interested in knowing if there is an underground market in stealth recording devices. The really good kinds... the kinds our government uses against us.

      Okay, I admit it, I was inspired by the movie Enemy of the State, but it was a damn good movie!

      Cheers, Joshua

  • No Press, Huh? (Score:1, Troll)

    by dupper ( 470576 )
    Appropriate that they wouldn't want press. Pressing anything crashes Windows.

  • This only covers depositions, not all proceedings. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by victim ( 30647 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @09:12PM (#2922912)
    This only applies to the deposition gathering process. This is the normal way such things are done. Allowing public access, as was done in the DOJ proceedings, is the exception.

    • Shhhh!!! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @09:23PM (#2922961)
      Mod this guy down, he's distracting us from the kneejerk, fearmongering comments everyone should be reading.

      If you bring common sense to slashdot, then the terrorists have won.
    • Please mod this up. This is exactly right.
    • This only applies to the deposition gathering process.

      Exactly. And heaven forbid Microsoft acts in it's own interests in complete accordance with the law. Next thing you know they will figure out how to cut development costs to increase their profits. It's as if they're trying run a business in the USA of all places!

    • This only applies to the deposition gathering process. This is the normal way such things are done. Allowing public access, as was done in the DOJ proceedings, is the exception.

      OK, I'll have to trust you on this part. So the deposition gathering process is closed, but I'm presuming that key parts of the proceedings will still be available to the public.

      My major concern was to see Bill Gates answering questions in his usual sideways style, because it's so entertaining. I can see him going goggle eyed when asked about "air supply".

  • Lame reporting as usual by Slashdot (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Huge bits of information such as this [com.com] have been left out of the Slashdot submission:
    But U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said she would allow the media to file court briefs in response to Microsoft's request.

    ...

    Kollar-Kotelly's giving the media the opportunity to respond is in some ways unprecedented, say legal experts.

    "To my knowledge this is the first time any outsider has been allowed to intervene in the suit, even if it's for a limited purpose," said Bob Lande, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law. "This means they will be able to submit papers and probably speak in court."

  • leaks. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by prizzznecious ( 551920 )
    Their primary motive is probably to put themselves in the position to leak information as they see fit. It's not so much to keep the press from reporting about this as it is to have greater control over the content of the reporting that does get done.
  • The interesting part here is:

    U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said she would allow the media to file court briefs in response to Microsoft's request.


    Now this is kind of scary, as the media have the media's best interest, not society's or either of the party's involved. Oh wait, one of the plaintiff's is AOL Time Warner?

    I do not like to be the one with the extreme Orwellian predictions, but allowing the media to be heard is just asking for trouble. Imagine a case involving a popular figure... "And now the court will hear from the National Enquirer."

  • Read the Article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by idiotnot ( 302133 ) <sean@757.org> on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @09:14PM (#2922923) Homepage Journal
    Press won't be allowed to witness the depositions. BFD, really, as those often don't take place in court. The proceedings in court, however, cannot be private.

    And the depositions become public record once they're submitted as part of the case. So, there won't be any reporter's spin on what he saw/heard during the depositions....you'll just have to read them yourself.
    • So, there won't be any reporter's spin on what he saw/heard during the depositions....you'll just have to read them yourself.

      Oh right, like MicroStuff themselves are not going to continue to spend billions of dollars telling everyone that they are being persecuted for inovating, that they have exonerated themselves beyond a shodow of a doubt and that they will continue to bring you the world's finest software without interuption. The spin never stops. Pray tell, why are you here defending the evil empire's preference for the dark?

      A normal company would want the widest possible public hearing when accused. What do they want to hide? While you dissmiss "reporter's spin", let's not forget the reason spin comes about, that the new institution itself was bought or has an interest in the outome of what they report. This is an outrage that only be protected against by having multiple news outlets owned by independent companies. Cool reason can only go so far when presented with lies. Reason only works with truth, and the truth only comes from informed but disinterested third parties.

      It's too bad we won't get the details of the proceedings. A room full of reporters would be a good thing. Every paper in the US printing the mindless pro Microsoft wire story is what you will get. The news outlets that will be excluded will be the indepenent ones, Wired, the Register, and anything else not owned by M$, Disney, GE, Westinghouse or the Associated Press International. Microboft will make up what it wants you to hear, and it's usual friends will quote it as honest news. The depostition may not be important, but there's no reason to keep it secret.

      If only they would put 1/100th of that money and effort into implimenting widely accepted standards and security measures, they would not need to break the law.

    • Let's see, depositions, those are sworn testimony that can be used as a replacement to testimony in actual court, right? So the proceedings you talk about could consist entirely of include statements.

      Much is usually lost in transcription. My mom became an OJ trial junkie while that mess was going on. There was a huge difference between watching the witnesses and reading a few blurbs. I got to see that lunatic that claimed she wore three writst watches all the time but was not and the father of LSD's broken leer as he tried to debunk DNA testing. It was much different from the AP garbage summaries.

      What the public will lose here is a forgone conclusion. Though abuse of the worst kinds have been proved and are part of your precious public record that no normal person will ever see, the "punishment" will not be worth much. Our leaders have spoken and I am dissapointed. The whole thing is getting swept under the rug and this is just another piece of it.

  • After all, winning a case like this could prove difficult when you're not allowed in the courtroom.
  • ...does M$ want to keep it's users clueless about the machine itself by dumbing down the OS, they also want to keep it's users clueless about their bad business practices as it continues to get exposed.

    Great.

    Bill still wins, even when losing. Gotta love America...

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Gotta lover America:

        I'm honestly stumped. What do they have to do with the M$ case? A lot of them are not even in America anyway. Mandrake? France. BSD's? Canada (well, one of them I forget which). SuSE? Germany. ATheOS? Finland (? I think I might be wrong, the site is down I can't check). Petros? Australia. Shall I go on?

        What does your challenge of my (sarcastic) statement of: "Bill still wins, even when losing. Gotta love America..." have to do with the post you just made?

        P.S.

        How the hell have you gotten mod'ed up enough to post at +2 if this is the type of stuff that you post? For the record, I'm almost capped, but I post at +1 because I don't feel that I need to be trying to push other/better posters out of the way for my little rants. People just continually think my rants are "insightful" [slashdot.org] or "informative" [slashdot.org] or even "funny" [slashdot.org] once in a while. But I do forget to check the "No Score +1 Bonus" checkbox from time [slashdot.org] to time [slashdot.org]...
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • In probably 100 or more posts I have pointed out that MS isnt a monopoly at all.

            And in every single one of them, you would be wrong. Microsoft has an operating system monopoly as a matter of law. You may choose to disagree with that, just as I may choose to disagree with the argument that the DMCA is constitutional, but the simple fact is, the courts have decided against us*, so it's not a debatable point anymore. You should get over it. "why? Because thats the way the system works."

            And most of the time I get modded up - meaning someone out there thinks I have a point.

            The operative word being "thinks". Getting modded up doesn't prove you're right.

            * Actually, I suppose I still have a little bit of room to hope, since there are appeals pending over the DMCA, but for now, the law stands.

  • The antitrust laws were made to protect consumers, but it seems consumers aren't getting to see how the antitrust laws are working for them. Just doesn't seem right to me, but I'm no lawyer (just a consumer).
    • Welcome to the legal system. Bullshit like this happens far too often. It's part of the reason why the EFF is so popular and why the average idiot is so sadly uninformed.

    • Re:Antitrust laws to protect consumers (Score:4, Informative)

      by dinotrac ( 18304 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @10:52PM (#2923215) Journal
      Consumers WILL get to see the things they get to see in ordinary trials.

      The problem is that defendants -- and witnesses -- have rights, too, even when the defendant is Microsoft and the witnesses are Microsoft employees.

      To get an idea of how this comes into play, you should understand the nature of a deposition. In a deposition, attorneys have far more latitude than they would in questioning a witness at trial.

      The downside is that damaging or merely private information can be generated that turns out to be irrelevant to the case. For example, it's not uncommon to ask deposees about things like drug problems, financial problems, etc, that might reflect on their credibility. It might come up that some middle manager working on some project is a recovered and teetotalling alcoholic or was arrested for shoplifting as a teen or some such thing. That information probably has nothing to do with the case, never makes it into the courtroom and really isn't anybody's damned business.

      That's one reason why some proceedings are not public.

  • Not right, but legal (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @09:16PM (#2922936) Homepage
    I can already see the posts piling up about how this proves that the government is in MS's pockets. I hate to break the news to you, but all this proves is that everyone has to follow the laws. I don't like the decision, but if the law states that only trials involving the feds are open, then that is what it states. You can't ignore this law and still try to punish people (or MS in this case) for ignoring laws. I don't like the law and think it should be changed, but I can't fault MS for using the law. If we expect MS to follow the law (which is what this is all about) we can't complain when the follow the law, even if it is to their own advantage.
    • IANAL, but my understanding was that the law doesn't "state that only trials involving the feds are open". For one thing, we're talking about depositions, not the actual trial itself. Secondly, it says that depositions involving the feds are open, and it's up to the judge whether or not to extend that openness to other depositions where the feds are not involved. So, it would also be perfectly legal to make these proceedings fully open. In this case, the judge has asked the media to make a submission before she makes a final decision, which is quite innovative.

    • ????? (Score:2)

      by Tony-A ( 29931 )
      How did the feds get uninvolved in this?

  • it's probably not a bad thing.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by b-side.org ( 533194 ) <bsideNO@SPAMb-side.org> on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @09:19PM (#2922948) Homepage

    seeing what the press coverage ended up doing to Jackson's ruling (his interviews with the press painted him as being biased, which had a part to play in the appealate decision to remand the case..) maybe it's a good think CK won't be under the same scrutiny.
  • I can see why SlashDot would feel the need to post this. It IS pretty newsworthy when The US of A decides to FOLLOW IT'S OWN LAWS. Oh, wait, the laws don't apply to MS, do they? All are equal, some are just less equal, right? Or did they forfeit their rights somehow? If so, that just means that everybody else in the US can 'forfeit' their rights. Slippary slope.
    • The judge had the right to keep the proceedings open, and like others, I don't think there was a compelling need to have them closed.
    • If so, that just means that everybody else in the US can 'forfeit' their rights
      No just convicted monopolists that should not have the power over politicians, courts, etc..that they do. The fact that corporations should not have the same rights as people period.. Well thats a whole nother topic.
    • What is Microsoft so worried about that they don't want the proceedings covered by media? Surely a corporate entity intent on settings things right would want the greatest transparency possible.

      It is possible that Microsoft is about to propose another remedy and hopes that this time, since the media will be barred from seeing the proceedings, the outcry will be lessened enough that some of the remaining states will be willing to cave in.

      --

      Some people say there is no money in Linux. Well, the problem about Windows is that Microsoft wants all the money. At least in Linux I don't have to worry about big brother being able to murder my business using dirty tricks.

      What kind of business case does a company have when its competitor can prevent all its products from being on the shelf at whim? Thats what happened when OEMs tried to bundle products Microsoft didn't approve of with new computers.

      The government has a moral obligation here. Oddly, it appears only a few of the states are answering.

  • 2 comments (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    1. Don't worry--with microsoft's security problems, the proceedings will leak out somehow :-)

    2. I just realized that it is possible the court system hearing the case may themselves use a computer system run by microsoft's products. That could have some interesting implications. (Like the judge typing up his opinion then realizing he's using MS Word to type it. Possibly causing him to change some aspect of his opinion.)

    ----
    Quake is just a crutch for those who can't handle Descent.
  • Well it looks as if Bill is once again going to just get his hands slapped. If it were any other company this would of been settled long ago, I guess if you have bottomless pockets to drag this on for as long as they have you'll always buy justice...

    rm -r windows
  • The press just can't sit in and tell us all how guilty BillG looks as he squirms in his chair and argues the meaning of basic English words.


    Decisions and briefs aren't being sealed here. We'll still have a window (urp!) into the progress of the suit.

  • If it's OJ Simpson, then the judge is a publicity whore, and it turns into a media circus. If it's Microsoft, there's no media to "show us the truth." I'll take my chances for once on something _not_ becoming a media circus, and maybe a cool-headed judge doing right by the law. Let's hope he's a cool-headed hangin' judge!

  • Media circus will obstruct justice (Score:5, Interesting)

    by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @10:00PM (#2923061) Homepage
    When highly controversial court cases take center stage, it has become common practice of our mass media to leap upon the story like a mad beast and tear at it, and pull on it, and mangle it until it is no longer recognizable. In this process, the true goal of the proceedings is lost, and the focus becomes the persuit of every mundane detail.

    Our more recent, highly publicized court cases have fallen prey to this media frenzy. Now, OJ Simpson walks as a free man, thanks to the travesty of justice that was his trial, and Bill Clinton's legacy is now "the guy who got a hummer in the Oval Office", instead of "the guy who purjured himself, obstructed justice, and disgraced the Presidency".

    So I ask the Slashdot community: is extensive media coverage of the Microsoft proceedings necessary? As is demonstrated on this site daily, this issue is an emotionally-charged one, and the media hounds will do more harm by running wantonly with similar emotion. The focus of Microsoft's business practices will be lost, and people it claims to serve will be misled, all in the name of 'getting the scoop'.

    Please consider letting the justice system do it's duty without undue distraction. Trust me, with the power at Microsoft's disposal, their task is difficult enough as it is.

    • In the OJ Simpson case there was no real question of whether the prosecution really wanted to prosecute.
    • The media jump on every Court case that will sell air/print -- irrespective of whether there are cameras in the courtroom. Please point to the specific harm. Sequestering a jury is less harmful to society than limiting the freedom of the press, especially about an important operation of government [justice]. Keeping secrets is harmful. Everyone else in the courtroom is a professional who should perform better under scrutiny, not worse.


      Your "tearing, mangling and persuing mundane details" doesn't just describe the media, it also describes the Court process. Have you ever sat through a real court case? "The wheels of justice may grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine." In this sense, the media is accurite.


      As for the OJ criminal trial, I don't think the presence of cameras influenced the case one bit. It sure did influence the public, though. Calling the outcome a "travesty" betrays a vengeful motive, or at least a misunderstanding of "the true goal of the proceedings" of criminal justice. It is not to punish wrongdoers, but to maintain order by punishing wrongdoers. Subtile but big difference. Do you know why it is better that 100 guilty walk free than 1 innocent be convicted? Hint -- it has to do with freedom, and IMHO has resulted in Anglo-Saxon countries enjoying greater economic development than those without this legal tradition. Or doesn't a impeached, perjuring, racist star prosecution witness count towards "reasonable doubt"?


      As for Bill Clinton, his trial was by the Senate with no cameras present. How did cameras or the media circus win him leniency? [Where is that transcript?] They exposed most of his wrongdoing.


      I will answer your question: Yes, coverage of the MS proceedings is vital. On the principle of open courts alone. Sure, some people may be mislead by the media. Better that than rumours and innuendo. Fortunately, we will get coverage. It's only the depositions that are private, probably as they should be until admitted into evidence.

  • Public Comment ended Monday (Score:4, Funny)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @10:05PM (#2923077) Homepage Journal
    And isn't it strange that the day after public comment closed that this would happen?

    So the Public is not allowed to know what the Public says?

    Something is seriously wrong with this picture

  • actually... (Score:4, Informative)

    by adrenalinerush ( 518023 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @10:10PM (#2923087)
    It looks like reporters ARE going to be allowed in. In this AP story [excite.com], the judge rules that reporters CAN listen to pretrial depositions, unless MS can prove that confidential information would be disclosed.

  • Conflicting news reports (Score:4, Informative)

    by KITT_KATT!* ( 322412 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @10:16PM (#2923109) Homepage
    The Associated Press is saying the opposite in this story [ap.org], titled Reporters OK'd at Microsoft Hearing. I quote the first paragraph: "The judge in the Microsoft antitrust case ruled Tuesday that news organizations can listen to lawyers question technology executives in pretrial depositions unless Microsoft can prove the sessions would reveal confidential information."

  • No more watching Slippery Bill? (Score:5, Funny)

    by PhotoGuy ( 189467 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @10:33PM (#2923158) Homepage
    So it only applies to depositions? Does this mean we won't get to see Bill being interviewed on tape? That was one of the most entertaining parts of the trail to date!

    This [nwsource.com] talks about some of the funny parts (arguing over the definition of "define" :-).

    Other things he couldn't define were "we", and "compete." What a hoot. Another great quote: "I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'." It really smacked of a guy who had some professional coaching on how to dodge questions, but executed it very inelegantly.

    If not showing this type of questioning publicly is indeed what the court order means, I'm not surprised Microsoft fought hard for it. Bill just looked as dishonest and sneaky as many people think that he is.

    -me

  • AP seems to think otherwise... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EricTheGreen ( 223110 ) on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @10:37PM (#2923174) Homepage
    (AP newswire article) [ap.org]

    If I'm interpreting this correctly (and IANAL), seems that the judge agrees that the statute requiring open access to the depositions doesn't apply in this circumstance. In fact, the judge seems to be requiring MS to do the heavy lifting demonstrating why the media should be excluded from a particular deposition. My guess would be that MS's legal team will concentrate on sealing any depositions of the big guns (pretty much anybody above product manager level, or whatever the equivalent is at MS), so that they don't experience a repeat of the Gates video debacle. The small fry will be left open, but they probably won't offer anything we haven't already heard.

    In any event, I'm not sure what the flap is about even if some/all depositions are closed. The judge can only consider what is actually presented to her as formal evidence (which will end up being a subset of the deposition material IMHO). Deposition transcripts entered as evidence will be available to the public.

    Besides, it's not like the technical/media community is suffering from a shortage of "Two-fisted MS business strategy" stories right now anyway...

  • What's the Difference? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Murdock037 ( 469526 ) <tristranthorn@hotmail. c o m> on Tuesday January 29, 2002 @11:58PM (#2923547)
    Does this matter all that much? The tech-curious members of the public-- namely, us-- would probably keep an eye on any proceedings as if it were OJ 2, so we're missing out on something. But the court of public opinion has already rendered judgment, and Microsoft has undoubtedly lost as much respect from the whole antitrust ordeal as it ever could.

    They'll make any attempts to twist the law that they can-- wouldn't you?-- but the damage in the public's mind is probably already done. Unless any judgments are absolutely absurd in either direction, I don't really think anybody can cry foul here.

  • I believe the judge should make Microsoft release the source code, internal documentation and all trade secrets to the public domain within a week. Furthermore, the judge should make Microsoft evenly split all their money and assets between all free and open source software projects in existance, even those projects started for the sole purpose of getting that free money, as the purpose isn't to help free software and open source projects, but to ruin Microsoft. Furthermore, the judge should rule that all shareholders, management, employees, family and friends of employees, and anybody else who is even remotely related to Microsoft must give all their personal assets to the aforementioned free software and open source projects. Furthermore, all those people must sell themselves as slaves and give that money to those projects as well. Finally, when all is said and done, there will be no more Microsoft, and the world will have no choice but to have a choice in the matter of what operating system and software they will use from now on.

    Oh well.

    Negra Modelo... because Guiness sucks.

  • ... to hide from the general public.

    Wonder what that could be? Maybe: Price gouging? Security problems? Bloating problems?

    Guess we'll never know unless we read the court transcripts.

  • Everybody has something to hide..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ainsoph ( 2216 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @04:45AM (#2924193) Homepage
    everytime some scumbag has done something wrong and they are hauled into court for it, unless it is some show trial (John Walker, OJ.. etc..) People get barred when there are some real juicy bits.

    Take for example, the barring of the media during the Iran/Contra hearings when the talks turned to drug issues, in the name of national security.

    My website has two very curious events..STORIES that were released in the mainstream Media right after the SOTU adresss.

    Both Cheny and Bush have told Dachle and the rest of the Senate not to head any (planned) investigation into the events of 9/11.

    Interesting. More juicy bits. The same thing with Enron, the whitehouse just flat out says: we will not give you what you are asking for, even if you use the law to try and obtain it.

    It scares me that this kind of behavior is being used more and more in this country, and that it is seen as expected "normal" behavior.

    propaganda arts [phpwebhosting.com]

    Ashcroft is afraid of TITS for christ sake.. Now I understand why [indymedia.org]

  • Caldera's hush hush settlement (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In my comments to DOJ a few days before the deadline, I mentioned that Microsoft's corporate victims cannot get onto the public record, which tilts the debate.

    I will try to summarize what happened.

    Back in the days of MS-DOS rule in PC's, there came to be a form of coercion called "the motherboard tax". Even though software was already dirt cheap to mass produce, Microsoft managed to strongarm PC vendors into package deals wherein it was a bit cheaper to obtain MS-DOS per-computer licenses. As part of closing the sale with each big PC vendor, Microsoft insisted that each motherboard to ship from, say, Gateway 2000, to its customer in a computer system would trigger a sale of one MS-DOS license. In other words, even if the PC vendor (and software license reseller) did not put MS-DOS into the computer, the PC vendor would have to pay Microsoft as if the PC vendor did put MS-DOS into the computer.

    Thus, Microsoft exacted the so-called "motherboard tax". You want to provide OS/2 Warp? Fine. Resell it, and pay the tax to Microsoft, once per motherboard. You want to ship it with SCO? Same deal. Most relevant legally, if you want to ship the computer with DR DOS or Novell DOS 7.0, you still have to pay Microsoft the motherboard tax.

    Caldera obtained the rights to DR DOS (after it came to be known as Novell DOS). Caldera's rambunctious CEO took on Microsoft. In a secret deal, Caldera won.

    So what? Great for Caldera's shareholders short term. What difference did it make in the overall pursuit of justice in the context of the goals of the Sherman Act? Not much.

    I find it a little bit hard to believe that this topic has yet to come up on slash dot. Oh well. Now it's here. Please comment.

  • Bah! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 )
    The press can't attend? Well, if John Q. Public can attend, what's to stop him from posting trial reviews on Usenet? Or, better yet, from abroad via e-mail and an accomplice that's safely beyond the reach of yankee kangaroo courts???
  • Microsoft, the most innovative company in the world, has introduced the world to a brilliant new idea - from the makers of closed-source software, comes closed-source courts. Remember people: letting the public view court-cases is like a cancer, or a virus, it kills lawers' intellectual property. The way a lawer bull-shits is part of their creativity and protecting this will protect the winning of large corporations in anti-trust cases.

    Don't worry though, the judges in america are all corrupt, so you can buy transcripts and recordings of the whole case for a small cough.. bribe.
  • ...unfortunately for them, the judge will still see it all, and that's who matters.

Slashdot Top Deals

Alexander Graham Bell is alive and well in New York, and still waiting for a dial tone.

Close