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.
Now, are the hearings just closed to the media, or close completely to the public. I would think that they couldn't be, and that they shouldn't be since they would be publicly involved. If so, there could be people that would attend the hearings with recording devices, and they could just anonymously release them into the public, where media producers could randomly pick them up and use them. Kind of like the undercover investigations some news sources produce.
Their primary motive is probably to put themselves in the position to leak information as they see fit. It's not so much to keep the press from reporting about this as it is to have greater control over the content of the reporting that does get done.
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
I can already see the posts piling up about how this proves that the government is in MS's pockets. I hate to break the news to you, but all this proves is that everyone has to follow the laws. I don't like the decision, but if the law states that only trials involving the feds are open, then that is what it states. You can't ignore this law and still try to punish people (or MS in this case) for ignoring laws. I don't like the law and think it should be changed, but I can't fault MS for using the law. If we expect MS to follow the law (which is what this is all about) we can't complain when the follow the law, even if it is to their own advantage.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
I can see why SlashDot would feel the need to post this. It IS pretty newsworthy when The US of A decides to FOLLOW IT'S OWN LAWS. Oh, wait, the laws don't apply to MS, do they? All are equal, some are just less equal, right? Or did they forfeit their rights somehow? If so, that just means that everybody else in the US can 'forfeit' their rights. Slippary slope.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Canadian courts regularly ban the press. I for one don't disagree with this practice. Let the courts decide, there will be plenty of time for press when it's over. If there is the slightest perception of a problem with the press then shut them out.
A little faith in your justice system is a good thing.
Our more recent, highly publicized court cases have fallen prey to this media frenzy. Now, OJ Simpson walks as a free man, thanks to the travesty of justice that was his trial, and Bill Clinton's legacy is now "the guy who got a hummer in the Oval Office", instead of "the guy who purjured himself, obstructed justice, and disgraced the Presidency".
So I ask the Slashdot community: is extensive media coverage of the Microsoft proceedings necessary? As is demonstrated on this site daily, this issue is an emotionally-charged one, and the media hounds will do more harm by running wantonly with similar emotion. The focus of Microsoft's business practices will be lost, and people it claims to serve will be misled, all in the name of 'getting the scoop'.
Please consider letting the justice system do it's duty without undue distraction. Trust me, with the power at Microsoft's disposal, their task is difficult enough as it is.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
(AP newswire article)
If I'm interpreting this correctly (and IANAL), seems that the judge agrees that the statute requiring open access to the depositions doesn't apply in this circumstance. In fact, the judge seems to be requiring MS to do the heavy lifting demonstrating why the media should be excluded from a particular deposition. My guess would be that MS's legal team will concentrate on sealing any depositions of the big guns (pretty much anybody above product manager level, or whatever the equivalent is at MS), so that they don't experience a repeat of the Gates video debacle. The small fry will be left open, but they probably won't offer anything we haven't already heard.
In any event, I'm not sure what the flap is about even if some/all depositions are closed. The judge can only consider what is actually presented to her as formal evidence (which will end up being a subset of the deposition material IMHO). Deposition transcripts entered as evidence will be available to the public.
Besides, it's not like the technical/media community is suffering from a shortage of "Two-fisted MS business strategy" stories right now anyway...
I live in Canada and I can tell you that M$ gets big money from Canadian governmental agencies. (Remember, unlike the US, the canadian gov't is the BIGGEST employer in the country.) Most if not all branches and other arms of the canadian gov't are highly dependent on MS software to run their OSs. I have never seen a job posting for a government office job position that did *not* say that MS Office proficiency was necessary! In fact, I worked last summer in a government job and the office ran totally on Windows 9x, with Office 2000, Frontpage, etc. They are so irresponsible with their money in terms of software that they go out and spend $30 on ftp client software! They have never heard of freeware!* The godsend was they they didn't use outlook.
*Yes, I know that freeware and Free Software and different things.
Does this matter all that much? The tech-curious members of the public-- namely, us-- would probably keep an eye on any proceedings as if it were OJ 2, so we're missing out on something. But the court of public opinion has already rendered judgment, and Microsoft has undoubtedly lost as much respect from the whole antitrust ordeal as it ever could.
They'll make any attempts to twist the law that they can-- wouldn't you?-- but the damage in the public's mind is probably already done. Unless any judgments are absolutely absurd in either direction, I don't really think anybody can cry foul here.
everytime some scumbag has done something wrong and they are hauled into court for it, unless it is some show trial (John Walker, OJ.. etc..) People get barred when there are some real juicy bits.
Take for example, the barring of the media during the Iran/Contra hearings when the talks turned to drug issues, in the name of national security.
My website has two very curious events..STORIES that were released in the mainstream Media right after the SOTU adresss.
Both Cheny and Bush have told Dachle and the rest of the Senate not to head any (planned) investigation into the events of 9/11.
Interesting. More juicy bits. The same thing with Enron, the whitehouse just flat out says: we will not give you what you are asking for, even if you use the law to try and obtain it.
It scares me that this kind of behavior is being used more and more in this country, and that it is seen as expected "normal" behavior.
propaganda arts
Ashcroft is afraid of TITS for christ sake.. Now I understand why
The press can't attend? Well, if John Q. Public can attend, what's to stop him from posting trial reviews on Usenet? Or, better yet, from abroad via e-mail and an accomplice that's safely beyond the reach of yankee kangaroo courts???