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.

Comments

This only covers depositions, not all proceedings.

[victim]

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.

Re:You've got to be kidding me!!!

[nomadic]

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.

Read the Article

[idiotnot]

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.

Shhhh!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Media circus will obstruct justice

[goldspider]

When highly controversial court cases take center stage, it has become common practice of our mass media to leap upon the story like a mad beast and tear at it, and pull on it, and mangle it until it is no longer recognizable. In this process, the true goal of the proceedings is lost, and the focus becomes the persuit of every mundane detail.

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.

No more watching Slippery Bill?

[PhotoGuy]

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