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.'"

Comments

Who would believe Allchin ?

[jalilv]

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

Doesn't sound like an admission of guilt to me

[ClosedSource]

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.

Re:gee could that blurb be a little more biased?!?

[GSloop]

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!

Re:No study is necessary.

[SuiteSisterMary]

You should get both satisfactory proof that Ballmer lied AND a better-running computer. Usual warning, your mileage may vary...

I will point out that the site is quite upfront in that they don't remove the IE engine, only the executable and various icons and other such resources. The stated reason for this is that many many other applications expect the core rendering engine to be there, so they can use it. Almost as if it were, you know, part of the operating system.....