Slashdot Mirror
Documents Unsealed in Microsoft/Caldera Case
Mirele writes "The Salt Lake Tribune reports in an article today that a lot of formerly secret documents that Microsoft had submitted in the now-settled Caldera case have been unsealed. These documents include a deposition by a former Microsoftie that indicated she had destroyed e-mail correspondence when urged to do so by her boss. They also show Microsoft's inclination to overdesignate documents as secret. The judge unsealed all but about 30 documents. "
It looks like Microsoft may follow the Open Source model in the dozens of suits pending:
1. Settle Early
2 Settle Quick
MRM
Security by obscurity is a valid solution in certain situtations...
For instance, for where you are forbidden to hide something in the first place. Like these court documents. What was MS going to do, encrypt them with their key, and then place them into evidence? Talk about pissing off a judge. So the only way to use any kind of security was by hiding it out in the open, which is what stenography is.
Just spouting "Security by Obscurity" as the sole reason for something being a bad idea is quite simplistic.
I think the answer to that may be how and why it's being done. If that webserver and laptop has my CC numbers, and other sorts of personal info on it that I really didn't want anyone abusive to have, I'd be more then happy when they took it away from the person. Even if wasn't my info at all, but maybe a collection of other people's info.
I guess the answer could be so wartered down to this: If what is in those files shows the company/person is taking part in illegal activities then it should be 'okay'...
But then, in the fun of humanity, that brings up another question. Will the law enforcement actually stick to that? Will they just say "Oh, well, we thought there might be something on there damaging, guess we were wrong, sorry about the HD, you'll never see it again."
On the other hand, I'm not too sure if I would want the officals to have (or not have) the ability to take data on probable cause. That's just too sticky of a situation, and maybe can only be figured out on a per-situation basis.
I alwayd find posts like these funny. Being someone who likes MS (no, I don't agree with everything they've done, but I also don't think they are evil and the spawn of satan) and someone who has tried Linux and thinks it could be good given time to mature and if companies port software to it, I guess I am an MS FUD spreader. People seem to think the point of
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
"News for Nerds" has to be understood in context. Like it or not, there is an editorial bent to Slashdot. Articles are already posted by a non-secret cabal of people who are predominantly Open Source supporters who dislike and distrust Microsoft. These people clearly don't define people who have bought-in to the Microsoft Mindset as being Nerds. If you like and support Microsoft, in the minds of those who originally wrote "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." you are not a Geek, you're mainstream. There really is (or has been) a counter-culture element to Slashdot.
Actually, there's is pro-MS sentiment among the traditional Slashdot denizen, where MS supports Open Source or Open Standards. Even Bruce Perens supported MS in the recent AIM controversy. And, even a closed minded fanatic like me supports MS in their serious adoption of the Open XML Standard.
Unlike most other Media, Slashdot has an "Open Editorial Policy" that includes Moderators. These people also tend (although clearly less and less so) to be Open Source supporters who dislike and distrust Microsoft. This situation is not unfair. These people just have an opinion and a world-view. "Bias" is the perjorative term for people with a certain world-view.
One could just as easily accuse the Moderator who gave the 'Troll' Moderation originally as having a bias. After all, the humorous post that someone felt was a troll wasn't actually met with the flames you'd expect from a troll. That post was light humor that even the most rabid MS supporter would not take seriously. I think the Moderator just didn't like it and wanted to mark it down. If one wanted to put labels on opinions one might call that bias.
And the secret cabal wouldn't miss you at all, I'm sure. Hey, take heart, there's always comp.os.advocacy.windows!
Well, first of all, as I said, there already is in place a cabal of editors who support a certain Open Source/Anti-MS bent to articles. Every media has some editorial policy.
Now, let me say that I have to agree with others who've pointed out the problems with my half-baked idea of allowing a "secret cabal of Open Source Supporters as Moderators", but, once upon a time, the Moderators effectively were a small group of Open Source/Anti-MS people, yet dissent was fostered. Fostered enough that Moderators of opinions that went against the prevailing opinions were even eventually allowed.
There is a real potential problem here. MS supporters in the population at large greatly outnumber Open Source supporters, and they have more resources. As these MS supporters continue to find and colonize Slashdot, there is the possibility that Slashdot will lose it's distinctiveness and become just another ZDNet Talkback Forum.
I dunno. As I said, Slashdot was once run for, by and about Open Source Advocates. There was plenty of good technical discussion, lots of heated debate and less hot grits down the pants. You hear a lot of nostalgia for the good old days of Slashdot. I guess I'd be sad if I saw that Slashdot was becoming dominated by people who wanted to discuss fashion at the Emmy's or some other nonsense.
I'm sad now that I see so many flames that get moderated up whenever a Slashdot article poster states an honest and well-founded, but anti-MS opinion in the articles. Gee Microsoftheads, you've got just about every other Technical media locked down, must you have this one too?
-Jordan Henderson
Here's what I don't understand:
I'm constantly seeing people saying "I'll probably be moderated into oblivion, but..." before a post supporting Microsoft, and yet I constantly see posts like the one above being moderated up! It's not like you can browse at a moderation level of 2 or 3 and not see anything but anti-ms FUD, people. The pro-MS voice *is* being heard on Slashdot.
No offense to the poster, but if you don't want your posts to look like the one I'm replying to, learn some basic HTML formatting (or at least hit <ENTER>). Oh, and preview your posts.
To start a paragraph, use <p> and when it's done, use </p> (just a formality, really).
If you would like to emphasise a point, use <em> to start the emphatic part and end it with </em>. Do we see a pattern emerging?
<strong> is used to start a section of powerful text (couldn't think of a better word) and, of course, it is ended with </strong>.
Note: intelligent parsers and some search engines use the <em> and <strong> tags to find important words. The simple <b> (bold) and <i> (italic) tags don't have this effect. That, and a browser may decide to render emphatic or strong text with different techniques, depending on country, etc. (ie underline).
If you make a list of items, start each one with the <li> (list item) tag.
Sample HTML:
<P>This paragraph is <em>just a sample</em> of what you would type. The results are shown below.</P>
<strong>Note:</strong>
<li>How much nicer it is to read.
Results in:
This paragrah is just a sample of what you would type. The results are shown below.
Note:How much nicer it is to read.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Reichel had a personal relationship with Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates
If that's not disturbing, I don't know what is.
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
It would be interesting to know what part of the company was so secret? Marketing has always been the most important part of Microsoft's business plan (even over the product, imagine that). Maybe even plans for taking over competitors (Netscape, obviously Caldera). Perhaps there are some juicy Windows secrets - not that anyone would care all that much. Most likely it's a Halloween type thing, and personally that has all gotten a bit old to me.
hopefully this will shed a little light on the state of affairs . . .
Other confidential evidence includes precicely what the woman in the photo was doing with the insect, and why "Customer Base" was etched on one wing.
It is, however, completely untrue that Microsoft was intending to file 2.5 solar masses of blank paper as confidential, which would have sucked the Caldera legal team into an artificial black hole. That was intended for the DOJ team.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"We want to be perfectly frank about it, Microsoft would have liked to have tried this case in secret because there's no question what's going to happen now, the sharks are circling out there, and this isn't going to be the only antitrust action that's going to be filed against Microsoft, at least if [media reports] are correct, there are just a lot of potential litigants out there waiting to pounce," he said.
That's interesting. After knowing of MSs behavior for years and years, it's good to see other people opening their eyes to what they've been up to.
What does it say of a company and it's buisness practises when "the sharks are circling" and, "[there are] a lot of potential litigants out there waiting to pounce."?
Some of you might blame the sharks who are circling, but where there's smoke, there's fire. MS wouldn't be atracting so many sharks if it wouldn't have left the water so bloody with destroyed companies.
What MS forgot is: In a growth market, a rising tide floats all boats.
_________________________
But the question remains, what historical archive is there out there? Where can I find MS and NS press releases from 1996? Where does one go to find company histories?
What's interesting is, most of the time, the companies are the ones maintaining there own historical archive. Doesn't this make them their own historian? Wouldn't companies be free to exploit revisionist practices on their own actions? (perhaps a more informed (/.er) can point to me a resource I'm not aware of).
_________________________
Perhaps Moderation (and even Meta-Moderation) should be limited to a secret cabal who actually have demonstrated Open Source credentials rather than just posers (like me!). A lot of people would scream that this is unfair, but I don't see anything wrong with assuring that this place's editorial policy stays consistent over time.
The problem is, that'd do the opposite.
Right now, there's a very large pool of moderators, and bad ones are drowned out in a sea of meta-moderation. (And if you meta-moderate, you will have noticed that it went from 90% bad moderation to 90+% good moderation over a few short months).
If your plan were implemented, you'd go to a much smaller pool of moderators, and many of them would be people who have demonstrated that they're much better at writing good code than they are at being impartial moderators.
Some of 'em engage in flames in every online discussion in which they participate, and some of 'em are over-responders, engaging in protracted threads in which they respond to every post made on a subject, abusing +1 bonuses the whole way (if they have them).
Do you want those guys being a significant fraction of the moderators? I can think of one Open Source coding god who can barely keep positive karma. I've moderated him down a time or two myself.
Let's hope they don't start believing this quite from George Orwell's 1984...
...or we're all in big trouble! How about Open Source History? ;)
He who controls the past controls the future.
IANAL, but IIRC the sealed documents are still open to the opposing counsel and can be discussed in court, but unlike most of the court papers you can't subsequently review the material in the courthouse library.
Also, a court seal isn't automatic. The judge has a right to ask how public disclosure of the information will harm the company, and he can't be overwhelmed by thousands of irrelevant claims. If he feels that the lawyers are trying to pull a fast one, he can start focusing their attention on the task by threatening sanctions against the lawyers individually or their client. (An example of the latter is a flat assertion that he'll only seal 100 documents, so the client should choose wisely.)
Judges are (wisely) hesitant to invoke these sanctions without overwhelming need, but they can consider a company's previous actions. If a company has had 80+% of its classified papers opened in previous cases, many judges will be hesitant to rubberstamp subsequent requests.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
People seem to think the point of /. is to bash Ms and support OSS, and I'm not sure where they got that idea. /. was created to basically give an outlet for people to express "unpopular" opinions
/. was set up as a discussion outlet for "unpopular opinion". I think the quote is "News for Nerds", and the result may be popular or not so popular.
/. discussion was more pure and focused. People now seem paranoid when they see pro-MS posts because most of us have had terrible problems using MS products. We know that anyone defending MS must be either confused, clueless, or up to something.
/. GNOME vs. KDE were tons of fun.)
/. is not about popularity or bashing MS or even linux. News for nerds. Most nerds I know just happen to be unpopular, bash MS, and like Linux.
I really don't think that
/. is becoming more mainstream and therefore less selective. People are posting that have no clue about Unix (a traditional nerd essential). They sometimes don't have the capacity to deal with a command line. Some have made poor decisions to go with the MS solution and must be pro-MS or they get burned.
Old school
MS flamewars are not what we need ( Although the "old school"
Just wanted to say
ed
What the hell?
Yes, Slashdot does seem to cater to Linux and Opensource stuff the most. However, it is first and foremost "news for nerds"... That's why we see stories about Processors, Satelites, Planets, and anything else.
Why should it be suprising that finally there's a less biased moderator out there who can mark someone as a troll for bashing microsoft? I personally dislike seeing posts marked up simply bcause the take a swipe at MSFT or say something good about Linux, regardless as to whether or not it's actually true or not.
The day that moderation falls into the hands of a "secret cabal with opensource credentials" is the day i never come back here again. Right now, this place is fun simply for the fact that there's a wide range of opinions and ideas. It would suffer horribly if people realized there was no point in disagreeing with anybody because the "secret cabal of moderators" would mark them down to -1, effectively out of sight.
Personally, when I moderate, I always look for the more intellegent comments coming from views that aren't the normal slashdot norm. the higher they're scored, the more people see them, and it generally starts a good discussion.
I've learned a lot here either from my replies to my comments and/or other discussions i didn't take place in, because two smart people with different views will post a string of comments poking holes in one anothers arguments. That's good. If it were the way you described it, it'd be simply a site dedicated to patting the backs of open source developers. How much fun would that be?
Bob, I'm a systems administrator in Siliicon Valley. I agree that we shouldn't punish someone because they are too successful. But success always comes at a price. The average end user consumer gets a great deal! They get a one- stop shop for everything "software" on their computer. Heck, Microsoft even innovates some hardware for PC's too! Yes, the prevalance, and pervasiveness of comuters is overtaking our society at a mind boggling rate. I would even go so far as to say the growth has accelerated beyond anyone's control! The problem is not really about how succesful Microsoft has been. It's more of an issue of who they had to hurt to get there. I am a 10 year veteran of the computer industry. I've watched Microsoft completely crush every competing technology out there, through whatever means necessary. As a compuuter industry professional, I am sorely disappointed at where we are at today. I honestly feel that Microsoft's dominance, if left to it's own devices, is driving us into a "technological dark ages" There are a great many innovative technologies that would have vastly benefitted the computer industryindustry. ALL of them have been sacrificed for the sake of backwards compatibility with old hardware and software. And it's entirely because Microsoft has painted us into this virtual corner with their totally proprietary operating system, and applications that ONLY work on their all too shortsighted proprietary operating system. I happen to LIKE Microsoft office. Microsoft just won't make it for my platform (UNIX). But they probably cannot ever port it to UNIX because it relies on facets of their closed source proprietarty OS that it requires to operate. They use this "integrated" approach to lock people into using an OS that they control, rather than something that the community controls through standards, and concensus. Imagine how boring it would be if GM were the ONLY company who could make the roads you drive, and you could only use a GM car. You could buy a Chrysler, but it wouldn't fit on the road, or the tires wouldn't grip the pavement. So, you could only drive it in the confines of your home or business. I genuinely fear the outcome! Microsoft's sales, and marketing over the past decade has been nothing short of a social engineering masterpiece! Therere are better products, and there always have been. If Microsoft can't buy them, they aggressively crush them with legalities and/or marketing dollars. The trend is disturbing! As en employee of one of Microsoft's competitors, I've watched our corporate family be infiltrated by people loyal to Microsoft products, and have successfully gotten them installed. The social, and political ramifications are very heartbreaking. I'm growing tired of watching my workplacebe torn apart by political battles between corporate IT people who buy what they see on TV the night before, and the engineers I support, who all know there is a better way, but have this Microsoft crap rammed down their throat unvoluntarily. Eventually, the engineers quit, eroding the viability of our once thriving Microsoft competitor. (Divide and conquor works!) The trend is not unlike the inquisition, in a way... the digital dark ages are upon us, and Microsoft's brainwashed everyone into thinking they are the OS/application/internet religion of choice. I, for one, believe wholeheartedly in the division of church and state. Long live Open Source Software! Bryan S. Manternach UNIX Systems Administrator Silicon Valley, CA, USA.
All of these companies have performed action that worked well in the file and forget media of the past. The actions of any of these companies would be forgotten a year from now if they were reported on TV, radio, newspapers, or even Time.
But that doesn't happen anymore. Now the articles tend to remain. Older article's can be stored in search engines, links to them persist. In the case of eToys, the personal "boycott eToys" web pages will probably be around for awhile.
I predict that the days companies can afford to overreact are limited. These actions by Microsoft will be remembered. Doubleclick's "please pull your article" blunder only increases the unfavorable press about them. DeCSS is now easier to find than Linux installation instructions.
The internet is different from conventional media in three ways: the target audience is larger, the speed of communication is faster, and the memory is more persistant.
Companies that want to survive in the long term will have to take this into account in the future. At $16 1/16 per share (down from $65, IPO @ $20), the lesson of eToys will need to be learned by everyone else. I expect to see "ads not provided by DoubleClick" messages under adspaces soon, especially with links pointed to news articles or /. stories. (not a bad idea for Andover)
And that kind of damage can last a long time.
-----
No Zen is good zen
It should be obvious why anyone overseals documents--say you don't want 100 documents from being released. Rather than seal those 100--and thus making obvious which ones *you* consider the most damaging, seal 2000. If you lose the case, and all the documents need to be unsealed, you haven't told the press or your enemies which 100 to look into for damaging information. You prevent leakage of information by hiding content in plain sight.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
You are not imagining things. Every time I see the "Bill Gates of Borg" icon, I know I will see a flood of pro-MS FUD and anti-Linux/Open Source diatribes posted in the discussion within. You will also note many of them are bitter, angry posts about how "unfair" poor Microsoft is treated on Slashdot. Utterly ridiculous, considering that for years nearly all of the "mainstream" computer/internet press acted like they were part of the MS PR Dept. I've always been glad that Slashdot was here, to deflate some of that - not just from MS, but from any large company.
;-)
Is MS behind it somehow? Nahhh, I don't think so. If word got out that they were ordering employees to post on Slashdot, it would be more embarassment that they really don't want right now.
It seems to me these are just people who genuinely like Microsoft/Windows, and feel much like missionaries among the Heathen Open-Source savages here on Slashdot.
Moderation? I've seen a lot of on-topic posts recently marked "Troll" or "Flamebait", which tells me we are getting some really bad moderators. Hopefully, M2 will weed some of them out.
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
So the question, again, becomes this: when does privacy end and obstruction of justice begin? We balk at governments for seizing peoples' laptops and webservers, yet we have a good laugh as we watch Microsoft scramble to burn all their documents. Is there really a difference?
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed
That is an Urban Legend and thus, not true.
Linux O Muerte!
I'm fed up with this kind of KRAP. Maybe heavy abusers should get their IP addresses published on the 'I fucked with slashdot' list. They might be a little less interested in wasting my time and everyone else's who wants to legitimately read other people's opinions on slashdot.
Other thought: I want an option to ignore all posts by ACs.
That's all.
Don't like my sig? I don't either.
You say that you dont think MS is behind the pro-MS postings here. You then support this by saying that MS would be too embarrassed if caught.
Embarassment didn't seem to stop them here:
Microsoft Admits to Secretly Paying for Independent Ads
Remember they have billions and billions, so why not have a few stooges post online to help keep their stock prices up? Seems like a good idea to me, if I were in their shoes.