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.
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.
Don't overreact; the Judge had to rule on law, and that's what she did. It's not like once the cameras are barred MS will be able to do something sneaky; the state AGs are not as sympathetic to MS as the Ashcroft "Justice" Department is.
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.
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"
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!
Mod this guy down, he's distracting us from the kneejerk, fearmongering comments everyone should be reading.
If you bring common sense to slashdot, then the terrorists have won.
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
And isn't it strange that the day after public comment closed that this would happen?
So the Public is not allowed to know what the Public says?
Something is seriously wrong with this picture
It looks like reporters ARE going to be allowed in. In this AP story, the judge rules that reporters CAN listen to pretrial depositions, unless MS can prove that confidential information would be disclosed.
The Associated Press is saying the opposite in this story, titled Reporters OK'd at Microsoft Hearing. I quote the first paragraph: "The judge in the Microsoft antitrust case ruled Tuesday that news organizations can listen to lawyers question technology executives in pretrial depositions unless Microsoft can prove the sessions would reveal confidential information."
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.
So it only applies to depositions? Does this mean we won't get to see Bill being interviewed on tape? That was one of the most entertaining parts of the trail to date!
:-).
This talks about some of the funny parts (arguing over the definition of "define"
Other things he couldn't define were "we", and "compete." What a hoot. Another great quote: "I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask'." It really smacked of a guy who had some professional coaching on how to dodge questions, but executed it very inelegantly.
If not showing this type of questioning publicly is indeed what the court order means, I'm not surprised Microsoft fought hard for it. Bill just looked as dishonest and sneaky as many people think that he is.
-me
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
(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...
The problem is that defendants -- and witnesses -- have rights, too, even when the defendant is Microsoft and the witnesses are Microsoft employees.
To get an idea of how this comes into play, you should understand the nature of a deposition. In a deposition, attorneys have far more latitude than they would in questioning a witness at trial.
The downside is that damaging or merely private information can be generated that turns out to be irrelevant to the case. For example, it's not uncommon to ask deposees about things like drug problems, financial problems, etc, that might reflect on their credibility. It might come up that some middle manager working on some project is a recovered and teetotalling alcoholic or was arrested for shoplifting as a teen or some such thing. That information probably has nothing to do with the case, never makes it into the courtroom and really isn't anybody's damned business.
That's one reason why some proceedings are not public.