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?"
Something similar occured in 1998. Based on precedent, shouldn't this new request be handled rather quickly?
Hogsback
The 1913 thing is a law.
Better explanation here
Hogsback
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/7444 /logic.html">Look Here for fallacies (at the end)</a>
Argumentum ad antiquitatem
This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been."
Argumentum ad novitatem
This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it's the fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
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In response to people's postings about it being outdated, the court of appeals disagrees with you.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, 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.