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

Rigging as a Business Practice

[Trinity-Infinity]

How many others have rigged as a rule? Enron had an entire Energy Securities Trade Center occupying a floor of an office building in Houston. They rigged that demo for the gov't.... The gov't rigged its missle tests (and those still failed!).

No need to mod or flame. I just think its interesting/sad that companies stoop to this level. Now excuse me as I go rig my code so my boss will sign off on it before the deadline...

Re:Rigging as a Business Practice

[doconnor]

One difference with the Mircosoft case is when they rigged the demo, they where doing it in court. They where clearly commiting prejury. In the Enron case it may be just fraud. In the missle test it was probably just lying.

Hmmm...

[dghcasp]

Ballmer complained that it would be too expensive to build a version of the Java programming language to package with Windows, as requested by the states. The states clarified that Microsoft wouldn't have to bear those costs.

Build?

Something wrong with just licensing the one that Sun already provides for free? That provides cross-platform portability (more or less) right out of the box?

Oh wait, sorry, I forgot I was talking about Microsoft.

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

[GSloop]

>>"he admits that the demonstration in court which showed this crippling was in fact rigged"
>Gee does he? I must have missed where in the article he actually said that.

I can't cite a web page, but Allchin did in fact appear to be a deer in the headlights when the government questioned him about the inconsistancies of the referenced video evidence. On further questioning, he basically stated that the system must have been setup wrong. He then stated that MS would redo the test, and it would be re-submitted as evidence.

MS later completely withdrew its' video testimony completely. That may not be a blatant confession, but it does say a couple of things to me.

Either:

A) At best, MS couldn't design a decent test, using the same software engineers who designed the product.

Or

B) At worst, MS blantantly rigged the evidence and attempted to willfully mislead the court.

If you were betting $1000, which choice would you bet on? Me, I'd pick B. But silly me, I'm probably just stupid.

Any way you look at it, it's scary. It either means you can't trust any of MS's testimony, because they couldn't find their butts with both hands, or you can't trust any of MS's testimony, because they refuse to be honest.

Either way, it amazes me that anyone believes ANYTHING that MS says. Clearly, at best they simply don't know anything.

Cheers!

Microsoft didn't commit perjury

[maxpublic]

Microsoft didn't commit perjury. Microsoft, Inc., isn't a person and can't think, speak, or act. It's nothing more than a legal abstraction for an actual body of workers and equipment bound together in a commercial endeavor.

No, Microsoft didn't commit perjury. But folks who work for Microsoft did. Now, if *I* were to commit perjury in a court of law *I'd* go to jail. Why, then, are you protected from punishment when you commit felonies while working for a corporation?

Max