Slashdot Mirror
Judge Grants MS's No-Press Request
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.
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)
This page left intentionally blank.
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.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
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.
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.
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.
Indie rock lives! b-side!
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.
God, that's so predictable and not funny, it almost hurts.
For the public good! Don't let anyone know or say anything.
2+2=5. Once you have mastered this, all else follows.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
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.
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.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing