Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Seeks to Bar Media, Public from Depositions
Richard Finney writes: "Yahoo/NewsFactor is reporting that Microsoft is moving to bar the media and the public from pre-trial witness interviews. Microsoft attorneys filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to overturn a previous order that allowed the media to hear and read depositions -- sworn oral testimony from potential witnesses. Witness interviews are normally secret and allowed to be viewed only by the parties involved. But a 1913 law ruled that the public has a right to see and hear depositions in antitrust cases brought by the federal government. I'm wondering, also, who's scheduled to testify? Why should this stuff be secret?"
This is a technical nitpick, but laws don't rule. Courts rule. Laws state.
But that's a direct quote from the original article. So the question is, is the 1913 thing a law or a judgement? If it's the latter, then it will be a lot easier for Microsoft to get its way.
I remember covering logic in a class once, and we covered a standard list of fallacies. For example, Ad Hominem attacks are arguments against the person, not the idea. Is there a similar term for attacks against laws or court rulings based on their age? It seems that anytime someone tries to enforce a law that's more than 50 years old, the date is emphasized to imply that the law is dusty and obsolete.
Next thing you know, you'll hear reporters saying, "the defendent claimed that he should be able to post any opinion he wanted, citing a 1782 amendment concerning free speech."
Something similar occured in 1998. Based on precedent, shouldn't this new request be handled rather quickly?
Hogsback
Why should this stuff be secret?
Fear of retribution against whistle-blowers?
Perhaps Microsoft just wants to avoid egg on their face. After all, when your CEO gets on the stand and (apparently) repeatedly perjures himself, you tend to lose a lot of customer trust. This is a fairly understandable motive to exclude the public.
OTOH, this is just a natural extention of the 'security through obscurity' concept. Tells you what the real root thought is- to wit, the silencing of dissenting opinion (rather than to maintain so-called security). When the media won't be your lapdog, just muzzle them.
Do you like Japanese imports?
I suspect that MS is embarrassed by the ongoing trial, along with all of the bad press lately. Maybe they think they can get back at the media by making it so they can't get to the court info. Frnkly, M$ could drop off of the face of the earth right now, and I couldn't be happier.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
What a horrible headline. Ouch.
Didn't you know? That's latin. "Deposi" is the latin for "deposits or excrements", ergo Microsoft is trying to bar the media from the crap they throw around at trials. What they are not counting on, is that eventually, some of it must eventually hit the fan.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Maybe they banned consonants too . . .
Just thought I'd drop a few lines to clarify what's going on here, and to respond to the "1998" post earlier about this being an easy matter to clear up.
First of all, the "1913" law in question here is 15 USC 30, which essentially says that when the gov't is suing someone over anti-trust violations, their depositions should be open to the public. In 1998, Judge Jackson (since removed from the case) granted the DOJ's motion to open up Micro$oft's depositions to the public pursuant to the law. This was appealed, and I would assume the appeals court upheld the law since the depositions are still planned to be open.
In response to people's postings about it being outdated, the court of appeals disagrees with you. It might be old, but the reasons the law was passed in the first place are still valid. However, even if they weren't, the court could still not strike them down because the law is in violation of no Constitutional provision. At most, they could limit its application and say something like, "No TV cameras." However, the plain language of the statute does not limit the law in such a way. It simply says that the proceedings will be as open to the general public as are standard trials.
As far as this serving as precedent, that isn't technically correct. The motion Micro$oft made is pursuant to Rule 26c (7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Without boring you much more with the details, this rule simply says that a court has the power to limit access to proceedings (such as depositions) to preserve trade secrets and other business information that would normally be considered confidential. Micro$oft is now asking the court to do so. The earlier ruling does not actually apply here, as we are dealing with a different statute.
So, essentially what's being asked of the court is something like this: "Legally, the depositions can be open. However, in light of our trade secrets that we need to protect, we ask that you limit who can see them and how much of what we say can leave the courtroom." Specifically, they would like for the MEDIA to be excluded. They are within their legal rights to make such a request, and the court has the authority to grant it.
Of course, the court also has the authority to respond with, "FUCK YOU, BILLY BOY!", but that's neither here nor there.
Tuck
Tulane University Law School
Actually, I would disagree with you there, more with your choice of the word "old" than with the general thrust of your argument.
It's not the age, per se, but the number of times something has been tested. Both evolution and the marketplace of ideas imply some sort of competition or stress that repeatedly tests the creature or idea in question. The more times or ways in which something has been tested, the greater certainty you can have that it is a creature or idea well-adapted to the problem at hand. Age provides more opportunities for such testing, but does not guarantee it. The "alternatives that have come and gone in between" are what provide it.
Obligatory analogy: Let's say there are two Garden-of-Eden type islands (which, for the sake of this argument, magically suppress change to species that colonize them and which containin identical climate and plant life), the first of which is isolated and populated exclusively by an animal that has lived there and existed unchanged for 600 million years, the second of which is not so isolated and which many species have fought over, one of which has come to dominance in the past 10 million years. Now a third Garden island appears (magically) within colonization distance of the other two. Do you mean to tell me that evolution implies that the animal from the first island, by sheer virtue of its long-established pedigree, will be more successful because it is better-adapted to its environment?
Back to the courts, I think it is reasonable to argue that a law from 1983 that has been repeatedly tested in the courts and has attached to it a long string of precedents should be given more weight than another law from 1903 that has never been tested in court. Such a situation is rare, of course, and usually old laws are also time-tested, and so it is natural for us to give them some respect in the absence of some other rational argument that might indicate the contrary.
While it is fair to say that, all other things being equal, older laws have a higher probability of having been tested more times and thus a higher probability of being backed up by precedent, why confuse the issue? All other things aren't always equal -- antitrust cases are rare, and old laws or rulings that apply to them very likely will not have as many opportunities to be tested as newer rulings that apply to more common cases. Age provides an opportunity for precedent, but does not in itself establish it.
The Ten Commandments and the Bill or Rights are respected by many not because of their age but because of their history, because of the relevance and instrinsic value that many see in what they have to say, and because of many other reasons including the profound respect that many feel for God and for the Founding Fathers. Do you think we should rank above them Hammurabi's Code just because it's older?
Your other example, the ten commandments, has among other things, and implicit approval of slavery and classification of women as second class citizens.
Really? I don't remember seeing those in the 10 commandments. Let's check them again... (summarization mine)
- ...no other gods before me
- Don't take my name in vain
- Don't worship graven images (idols)
- Keep the sabbath holy
- Honor your father and mother
- Don't kill
- Don't commit adultery
- Don't steal
- Don't lie about your neighbour
- Don't covet his(her) stuff either.
While I won't go in depth on any of this (and the twisting of these is easy to talk about,) I think that you will have a hard time finding slavery and gender inequality in there. I'd love to have an honest conversation about where that IS and is NOT found in the Bible, but that's offtopic here. Feel free to email me about it though.been out for 5 years, time to comment again...
So? I bet there's a few people who read slashdot that aren't in the media that could do a lot more with MS' trade secrets than any newspaper reporter ever could. I'm specifically thinking of virus writers, crackers, and the russian mafia. That and the fact that Bill will be lying his ass off in deposition...
"Netscape? Who's that?"
Who did what now?
are there any American laws governing repeated perjury?
Actually, the second amendment isn't interpreted in either of the two ways you mentioned. The second one is close to the NRA's interpretation, although they typically use language that is quite broader (Something like, "Absolute right of individuals to keep/carry a gun free from any governmental interference.").
:)
The Supreme Court's interpretation, however, is quite different. Under the Court's view, the second amendment is not seen as granting (or "recognizing", however you want to look at it) any individual rights at all. Rather, it is seen as a check on the power of the federal government to control the states. As sovereign entities, they need to be able to maintain an armed militia to keep the federal government from being able to use the army to just roll over them (so the interpretation goes). Thus, Congress is unable to pass any laws that impinge upon the states' ability to maintain such a militia.
Some might say that, under this view, Congress should not be allowed to pass any gun regulations at all because the second amendment leaves that power to the states. However, the Supreme Court basically says that these regulations are only unconstitutional if they significantly interfere with situations having a "reasonable relationship" to the preservation or efficiancy of a well armed militia. So, licensing schemes, banning certain types of guns from the public (i.e. assault rifles), etc., are okay because the states can still maintain an armed militia if they so desire. The weapons banned are not necessary for a militia, and typically police and National Guard forces are excluded from regulations of these kinds.
You can agree or disagree with this interpretation, I don't really care. I'm just here to report.
Tuck
Tulane University Law School
Tuck
Tuck's Journal.
Of course, the court also has the authority to respond with, "FUCK YOU, BILLY BOY!", but that's neither here nor there.
Now that I would like to see.
Anyone know where we can send bribes^H^H^H^H^H^HDonations so that the court does just that?
It seems, however, unlikely that the judge would grant this, as the proceedings speak to the validity of earlier proceedings from which the press was not barred. Microsoft would have to show the judge that its defense hinged on trade secrets not previously discussed. I believe this is unlikely because Microsoft has been wiggling and jiggling the situation in any direction it can trying to find a way out. If they had a stronger defense based on trade secrets, they would have trotted that out right away. I don't think they have anything left to fight with, and they're just pressing any possible angles they think they have.