Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Expert Witness Stumbles

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the everyone-feel-bad-for-stu dept.

parking_god writes "MIT prof Stuart Madnick, testifying on MS's behalf, was caught out twice when a government attorney asked him to name an OS (other than one made by Microsoft) where the browser couldn't be removed. Madnick also faltered on several other questions." Basically he doesn't understand what GNOME and KDE are, and since we're all holier-than-thou know-it-alls around here, we might as well laugh at Microsoft's expense ;)

8 of 915 comments (clear)

  1. Know-It-Alls by colmore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Basically he doesn't understand what GNOME and KDE are, and since we're all holier-than-thou know-it-alls around here, we might as well laugh at Microsoft's expense ;) Well given that this man is supposed to be an "expert witness" *some* knowledge of major competing OSes might be expected. The vast majority of Microsoft's business tactics are legal yet unsavory. I respect that. This is capitolism after all. What bothers me about Microsoft is their monolithic view of their role in computing. The honestly believe that without them, no innovation would have occured between 1985 and now, and so we should just let them walk over consumers and competitors out of gratefulness. I know it won't happen, but what I'd like to see come out of this trial would be a Microsoft not split up, shackled, or fined out of existance, but a Microsoft scared into respecting other's place in the industry. In all honesty they've done a better job than anyone else at creating a useable desktop OS good for a wide range of activities on a large variety of hardware. I'm not quite sure how they've been so successful in the server market, though. Advertising, I guess. And for my money, they still make a damn good mouse.

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
  2. Madnick is not an MIT computer science professor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He is an MIT Sloan School (business school, department 15, management) professor. Many of us from course 6 (EECS) are happy to disavow him.

  3. Generally pathetic witnesses for Microsoft by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've been submitting stories for awhile now (all rejected) on the ineffective witnesses that Microsoft has been using during this phase of the trial.

    They've had several industry witnesses who were forced to admit that they'd never read the settlement or the states proposals. The economist who testified for Microsoft had to admit that all of his research in this area had been funded by Microsoft, the Autodesk exec who after defending Microsoft had to relate how screwed over he felt by them excluding Java from Windows XP (needed for some Autodesk software). The most fun was the former Microsoftie, now head of his own company, who testified that the states plan would lead to the "balkanization" of Windows. On cross, he admitted that the Microsoft lawyers wrote the first draft of his testimony, and that he hadn't even know what balkanization meant.

    How much are these Microsoft lawyers getting if this is the level of their trial prep?

  4. Business press doesn't see it that way by sphealey · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I have been following the trial in the general business press as well as the IT trade press and of course the Linux-centric sites. Although the IT trade press is reporting that Microsoft's witnesses are doing a mixed job and are taking some significant hits in cross-examination, the general business press is taking the line that Microsoft's legal team has everything under control this time and is crushing the States.

    My guess is that the judge's viewpoint is going to be closer to the general business press than the IT world (much less Slashdot), so I am not holding out much hope for a meaningful order here.

    sPh

  5. This takes the cake .... by ProfMoriarty · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Madnick argued that perfect interoperability, which would allow products to be substituted for each other with no performance degradation, was a theoretical impossibility. "It would be surprising if two different products behaved exactly alike," he told the court Wednesday.

    Ok then ... so what about the examples that you gave earlier ...

    But KDE is a computer program designed to run on top of the Linux operating system, as Hodges pointed out. Madnick conceded that was true, and instead suggested GNOME as an example. But GNOME performs the same function as KDE on a computer equipped with the Linux operating system.

    This is VERY funny ... on one hand, it's "theoretical impossibility" to have TWO INDEPENDENT systems that can "be substituted for each other with no performance degradation" ...

    Yet he uses the PERFECT example of doing such ... KDE and GNOME.

    This stuff is so funny, it writes itself ...

    On a bit of a serious note, IS there any performance degradation between KDE and GNOME?

    --
    Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
  6. STUART E. MADNICK is *NOT* a CS Professor by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought this was wierd, so I did some checking on this guy. I looked for him on MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science faculty list, but couldn't find him. So I looked him up in the people directory and found this:

    name: Madnick, Stuart E email: smadnick@MIT.EDU phone: (617) 253-6671 address: E53-321 department: School Of Mgmt title: J N Maguire Prof Of Info Tech url: http://mit.edu/smadnick/www/home.html

    His department is not EECS, it is the School of Management! His research is in areas such as Total Data Quality Management and Productivity From Information Technology. Here is a bio description from his web page:

    http://mit.edu/smadnick/www/home.html Madnick finds ways to integrate information systems, giving organizations a more global view of their operations. He is leading a project that develops new technologies for gathering and analyzing information from many different sources, including conventional databases and the World Wide Web. He is also testing these new technologies in industries such as financial services, manufacturing, logistics, and transportation.

    Microsoft basically found anyone from MIT they could because it is MIT. I'm surprised they didn't find a janitor from MIT to testify.

    Brian Ellenberger
  7. Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think by fiber_halo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the organization as a whole has done a good job of finding spokespeople (like the professor) who appear "respectable"

    Yes, it never ceases to amaze me how many "respectable" people can be swayed by that payment for being a professional witness.

    It would take an unimaginable sum of money for me to sell out and lose the respect of my peers.

  8. Re:Microsoft maybe not as funny as you think by FatRatBastard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not only that, but removing respective Browsers from KDE and Gnome doesn't kill either Windowing environment. He was wrong on so many accounts.