Slashdot Mirror
Misrepresentation in DOJ's Response?
Robb Timlin asks: "Ok, so I'm checking over the DOJ's response to the public comments, and I notice they reference mine, among others, in Paragraph 149 (footnote 162): '149. Section III.B is limited to the twenty OEMs with the highest worldwide volume of licenses of Windows Operating System Products. Some commentors criticize this limitation, arguing that it leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against smaller OEMs, including regional "white box" OEMs.(162)' Problem is, I never said anything like that in my comment! Now it could be a simple error, or it could be deliberate misrepresentation of what I had to say (my criticism of Section III.B of the RPFJ centered on allowing MS to provide rewards to OEMs who toe the line, in lieu of retaliating against those that don't). A friend of mine urged me to bring this to the attention of somebody official, but who?"
"Anybody have any idea as to whom I should contact (if anyone)? The DOJ? State AGs still litigating? The judge's office? (E-mail addresses would be greatly appreciated - there's not much time before the hearing!) I haven't much of a clue when it comes to legal stuff; all I know is the RPFJ stinks and I did my part to fight it, and now I see my effort misrepresented.
By the way, anybody else here who commented might want to check if they're cited in the DOJ's response, and if it actually addresses what you said and not something completely different. If it's just one instance, it could be an honest error. But a pattern of misrepresentation would be a very serious matter indeed.
Thanks!
... is that it doesn't matter what you said. The DOJ did a deliberately slapdash job of assembling and responding to the comments because ... wait for it ... they don't care. They've been determined to let Microsoft go with a slap -- no, not a slap, a gentle pat -- on the wrist ever since GWB took over the White House. You could have written a letter saying, "I have absolute proof that Bill Gates eats babies for breakfast and Steve Ballmer is really Osama bin Laden," and they'd still have written (in Word, on their Windows PC's) "That's our settlement and we're sticking by it."
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
This is the Bush administration. When they're not jerking off on ways to kill people with bombs, hiding in underground bunkers, or throwing out all scientific evident pointing to global warming, they're cutting the leashes on as many monopolies as possible. Unfortunately, when Ashcroft is all about restriction of government FOIA requests, I doubt that there's anyone who can help. It's too late.
No sig is worth reading.
I've been contacted twice by my litigating state Attorney General's office (California) and have found them very interested in misbehavior. Duh. They are quite active in pressing this on, and any weapons you can give them will be very good. Now, they may decide that there is nothing to use but at least they will have looked at your information and seen if it can be a hammer in their hands.
I'd suggest using your own personal state address if you're a resident of the 9 sane states... you will be able to get their attention easier.
Good luck!
UserAdvocate: The voice of the user
That's acceptable if just referring to 'the arguments'. But when a specific argument is cited in a footnote as backing a particular point... It is a little more than 'bad attribution'. Especially considering this a document by/for lawyers. Attribution is everything.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon