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?"

Comments

"law ruled?"

[crow]

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.

not age but experience

[Corgha]

The problem being that the theories of "evolution" and "marketplace of ideas" both imply that if something is old, and is still around and/or still in use, it has a high probability of being a better solution to the problem than the alternatives that have come and gone in between.

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.

Not a certainty, or even necessarily close to a 100% probability, but at least a higher probability.

So the longevity of a solution to a problem is never irrelevant.

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.

Witness the 10 Commandments, the Bill of Rights, etc.

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?

Re:not age but experience

[Corgha]

As always, Slashdot is a discussion forum, not a venue for publishing master's theses or extensively fact-checked New Yorker articles.

Ah, yes, the old "My argument may be flawed, but these people are being snooty and unfair for pointing out its flaws and presenting their cases too well." A discussion forum Slashdot may be, but this is a thread about logical fallacies, not about which color iMac looks best. DNS-AND-BIND and crow asked how one might best form an argument to refute the "it sucks because it's old" argument; well-formed arguments are entirely appropriate.

If we lived in a microeconomist's dream universe... [straw man]

Who is talking about these ideal humans? I'm talking about judges, who are the ones that actually make decisions regarding these things, and who are hopefully wise enough to know the difference between well-established precedents and mere age, and failing that, are usually good enough to listen to a well-formed argument by a lawyer rather than blindly making a decision based on age alone.

When I say "theory of evolution" in this thread, I mean the popular definition of 'winnowing out of the less fit over a long period of time due to lesser ability to handle environmental stresses'...

I think the definition is fine enough. In fact, it makes my point: that it is the stresses that do the winnowing, not the time. The point of my magical weird environments analogy was that a species that has been around longer has not necessarily overcome more obstacles, just as a law that has been on the books longer has not necessarily been tested more often.

But tell me, why are such a high percentage of old houses also good houses? There are several factors, including the fact that building practices today are crap, but mainly because the bad, old houses have fallen down

The flaw in that analogy is that laws are not made of wood, and are unaffected by water leakage and termites. Laws are not periodically inspected -- they stay on the books until someone goes through the effort to challenge them and get them taken off. We have lots of silly old laws about the length of kisses and such that are unlikely to be challenged because no sane DA would ever risk his or her career by trying to prosecute someone for violating them.

If a rule in a pretty widely tested area of law stays unchallenged for 100 years, you also have to consider that perhaps the best lawyers of the last 100 years, in their (evolutionary) quest for the best defense, just decided to let that one lie?

Let us say that legions of lawyers have considered the law and found it to be unassailable. Are those acts of consideration not tests in themselves? All those unchallenged uses of the law in court will form the very string of precedents that I'm talking about.

The distinction I am trying to make is between those old laws that are in "pretty widely-tested areas" of law and those old laws that are not.

10 commandments?

[sysiphus]

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)

1. ...no other gods before me
2. Don't take my name in vain
3. Don't worship graven images (idols)
4. Keep the sabbath holy
5. Honor your father and mother
6. Don't kill
7. Don't commit adultery
8. Don't steal
9. Don't lie about your neighbour
10. 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.

Re:10 commandments?

[sysiphus]

Figures. I try to politely respond to a troll, and forgot to wear asbestos. We'll try this from the begining.

Okay, here's the actual quote from Exodus 20:17 (NIV)* "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

According to your post, That 10th commandment implicitly says that wives are property, as well as slaves. That's backing down quite a bit from the original you posted: Your other example, the ten commandments, has among other things, and implicit approval of slavery and classification of women as second class citizens. Acknowledgement is not the same as approval. Commandment 10 is about coveting, and gives examples of what not to covet. In those days, slavery was normal, as was ownership of wives. Bad as that was (is where it's still acceptable,) it was an accepted social norm. The rule was thus written using examples that people would understand. Unfortunately, the bible always reflected the prevailing philosophies and mores of the day (except the stuff from Jesus on forgivenes, but I'm working on understanding that.) However, to extract a statement of approval from a statement of (current understanding of) reality only serves your own self-interests.

By the way, I am aware that other parts of the bible implicitly allow ownership of women and slaves. I am also aware of parts that implicity forbid it. I only know of one of the drinking urine passages; can you give me the references. I also know about the mistranslation of swearing on the king's "thigh" (it is better translated testicles), and that Ruth didn't lay at the king's "feet" (the word also means genitalia.) I know the dirty parts and contradictions in and out. Maybe you know the bible better than I, maybe not. Doesn't really matter, kind of like this conversation in the middle of this thread.

Oh, and since you seem sure I am trying to prove a point about my religion, could you let me know what my religion is? I haven't even started trying to figure out what it is, as I'm currently busy trying to find out what my faith is (if it is.) Don't mistake correcting (what I feel to be) a dishonesty for defending religion. I have none right now.

* NIV was the default translation at bible.gospelcom.net. I do not endorse it over any other translation (except King James, which is just terrible), nor do I neccessarily endorse the bible over any other religios source material. Pick any translation, they all say the same basic thing here.