Slashdot Mirror
Allchin Admits MSFT Violated the Law
An Anonymous Coward writes: "CNN is running what amounts to a two part article about the nine states who are continuing their case against Microsoft in which Jim Allchins admits Microsoft violated the law.
The first part of the article deals with Jim Allchins assertion that there is no way for Microsoft to remove Internet Explorer from Windows without crippling the OS. However, he admits that the demonstration in court which showed this crippling was in fact rigged and that they have not done studies to se if it would be possible to produce an OS without the browser imbedded in it.
The second part of the story involves Allchin admitting that Microsoft has violated the law but refused to specify the violations. 'I don't think that I can summarize those,' Allchin said. 'I'm not an attorney.'"
And they did it intentionally. Hopefully he can understand what is wrong with that even though he is not a lawyer.
With Products like IEradicator from 98lite which removes IE from all the Windows OS versions right up to Win2K and still keeps OS usable, would anyone in their right minds ever believe when Jim says "Forget about any business thing. Technically I just couldn't do it." ?
- Jalil
The actual exchange was:
Q: "What practices do you understand Microsoft was found guilty of?"
A: "I believe that we were found that we tried to maintain a monopoly in the PC operating system space."
Q:"And is it your understanding that Microsoft did that by engaging in certain practices that the courts have held to be unlawful?"
A: "Yes,"
This is like asking someone if they understand the charges against them, or asking them what the court verdict was. If they followed up with the question "do you believe the court's verdict was correct?" and he answered "yes", then it would be an admission.
I use Opera and Netscape instead.
If you're running Windows 9.x-2000, I suggest you back up your machine completely and then give the MSIE install a try. You should get both satisfactory proof that Ballmer lied AND a better-running computer. Usual warning, your mileage may vary...
As for XP, while MS may have done a better job at kludging IE into the OS to make it harder to untangle this time, I'm sure a development contract to the people at 98lite plus access to the Windows API will result in a very fast and clean solution to the problem.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Not to pick nits, but MS isn't even close to being the richest company in the world. At least, not in terms of revenues...and a judgement of wealth based on stock value vs. stock outstanding is, in MS's case, grossly inaccurate due to their "stock options as salary" scam.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
it doesn't, or at least not in Windows 2000.
Start > Run > Cmd.exe > "at /?" yields:
The AT command schedules commands and programs to run on a computer at a specified time and date. The Schedule service must be running to use the AT command.
AT [\\computername] [ [id] [/DELETE] | /DELETE [/YES]] AT [\\computername] time [/INTERACTIVE]
[ /EVERY:date[,...] | /NEXT:date[,...]] "command"
\\computername Specifies a remote computer. Commands are scheduled on t local computer if this parameter is omitted.
id Is an identification number assigned to a scheduled command.
time Specifies the time when command is to run.
"command" Is the Windows NT command, or batch program to be run.
And to be honest, no, I don't know why it's called "at".
Rigging for a demo is one thing but rigging for testimony in a cout of law is another.
found a couple of sites that explain the law a little more clearly. I hope
Maine Law
and Vt Law
an excerpt from the VT law.
"RULE 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL
A lawyer shall not:
(a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;
(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;"
followed by
"Documents and other items of evidence are often essential to establish a claim or defense. Subject to evidentiary privileges, the right of an opposing party, including the government, to obtain evidence through discovery or subpoena is an important procedural right. The exercise of that right can be frustrated if relevant material is altered, concealed or destroyed. Applicable law in many jurisdictions makes it an offense to destroy material for purpose of impairing its availability in a pending proceeding or one whose commencement can be foreseen. Falsifying evidence is also generally a criminal offense. Paragraph (a) applies to evidentiary material generally, including computerized information."
to note: computerized information!!
If we were in china it would look a little diff.
China
"Article 306. During the course of criminal procedure, any defender, law agent destroys, falsifies evidence, assist parties concerned in destroying, falsifying evidence, threatening, luring witnesses to contravene facts, change their testimony or make false testimony is to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment or criminal detention; when the circumstances are severe, to not less than three years and not more than seven years of fixed-term imprisonment."
Well if it were anyone besides MS I believe the trial would start new now.
Oh well I'm not an expert on these things.
If I were only smart enough to accomplish the things I dream about.. Or maybe too dumb to care.
Umm...corporations have social security numbers. In a painfully literal, legal sense, they're as "alive" as you or I.
(Well, as alive as I am, anyway; no offence, but I don't know you from a grad student's AI project.)
Here's a little follow-up
ABCNEWS.com
Feb. 5 -- Microsoft admitted on Thursday that its videotaped demonstration of a browser-less Windows 98 -- a key piece of evidence in its defense against antitrust charges -- did not depict an actual test, but rather a simulation...
From Google, becaues CNet expired the article
Judge: Video discrepancy "very troubling"
By Bloomberg News
Special to CNET News.com
February 3, 1999, 3:50 PM PT
WASHINGTON--The judge in Microsoft's antitrust trial today said today that discrepancies in a video demonstration played by the software giant in court were "very troubling" and raised questions about its reliability as evidence.
Microsoft trips on video evidence
By Bloomberg News
Special to CNET News.com
February 2, 1999, 5:05 PM PT
update Microsoft's expert technical witness was tripped up at the company's antitrust trial, forced to acknowledge inaccuracies in a videotaped presentation that Microsoft's lawyers played in court.
While I can't find confirmation that MS did pull the video evidence (I am sure they did), it's clear what they presented wasn't correct, and that it was in error was KNOWN!
It may be biased, but it's factual!
Cheers!
That's not to say that they didn't have actual trading going on too, because obviously they did. But as with everything they felt the need to "cook the books".
sPh
The gov't rigged its missle tests (and those still failed!).
I think you must be referring to the "missile shield" missle test, where there was a transponder in the drone. My interpretation of the test is that the engineers must have been focusing on a few variables, which would be more scientifically valuable if they didn't have to worry about the guidance system, too. This is perfectly legitimate testing, even if the marketeers talking to the media didn't disclose it accurately.
The problem of the "missile shield" is so incomprehensibly complex that even getting the missle and drone to collide is a feat in itself whether or not the guidance system was complete.
The "rigged" missle test really is not a good criticism of the "missile shield". What will be interesting, though, is if the engineers really overcome the remaining technical obstacles. Hitting a missle with a missle is quite ambitious and may be a tad beyond current technology.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
"I'm a Genius!"*
*Not an actual Genius