Microsoft Urged Linux Retaliation

Rossalina W Sanchez writes: "Yahoo is reporting that an internal Microsoft memo from August of 2000 urged employees to 'work underground' to hurt companies, like Intel, who support Linux. When will they learn that these memos always come back to haunt them ..."

Comments

Also worth reading

[municio]

Similar startegies:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-912906. html?tag=fd_t op

disallowed?!?

[Maditude]

from the article:

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly disallowed the Kempin memo -- along with several others -- during Gates' testimony after Microsoft's lawyers objected to it.

I'm having a hard time imagining why the judge would have agreed to disallow this memo from being presented. Seems like a pretty good corroboration of the actions they are alleged to have done -- why would a memo stating that "hey, we should do this" NOT be allowed?

Re:disallowed?!?

[blakestah]

I'm having a hard time imagining why the judge would have agreed to disallow this memo from being presented.

It could be because it is irrelevant. This case is specifically about browsers. Really, it is about Microsoft using its OS monopoly to leverage into the browser market. More generally, the case MAY also be about Microsoft using similar tactics to leverage its monopoly into other markets, such as email clients, media players, ISPs, etc.

But the case is NOT about Microsoft using its monopoly to prevent entry into the OS market. And this memo speaks directly to that issue, but not to any issue relevant to leveraging the OS monopoly into new markets. From an antitrust perspective, those are not the same issue.

Re:disallowed?!?

[bourne]

I'm having a hard time imagining why the judge would have agreed to disallow this memo from being presented.

I have notices that Judge Kollar-Kotelly appears to be clearly giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt on most evidentiary matters. Two possible reasons come to mind:

• The hearings are a sham, and MS will be rubberstamped with a "Get out of jail free" card.
• After seeing how Judge Jackson was discredited after the previous trial for being clearly opinionated, Kollar-Kotelly is being extremely careful that her objectivity cannot be questioned by Microsoft after the trial.

I'm actually leaning toward the latter. Nobody wants to pull an Ito, and (I'd like to believe) judges are a lot harder to buy or exert pressure on than politicians - there are plenty of examples of Judges quite happily making horrendously unpopular and, if one could be objective, perhaps unjust judgements without any real censure.

Re:disallowed?!?

[TheConfusedOne]

The problems have to do with the rules of cross-examination. New evidence can only be entered in during cross-examination of it directly corroborates or contradicts a statment of the witness. Cross-examination isn't the time to enter unrelated evidence into the proceeding. That is supposed to be done during the prosecution's presentation. This is also why the Judge was so reluctant to admit the later cancelled XP Embedded demonstration into the proceedings.

The game has certain rules, granted they don't make much sense, but they have rules nonetheless.

<#include std.IANAL>

Re:disallowed?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

BS. It is not about browsers. The only ones saying that it is about browsers is MS and its controled pet, the news media(would'nt want to confuse the public with the details, you know). The case is clearly about all of MS tactics to maintain its monopoly. If you had read any of the court documents besides what MS produced you would realize this. MSs main tactic has been to limit the scope of charges since day one.

Re:Haunt?

[WeirdKid]

Nor will it haunt them in this instance, since the judge disallowed the memo as evidence.

Re:Business as usual.

[NoBeardPete]

This is something that people constantly point out here on Slashdot, so here it goes again. The courts have found the Microsoft is a monopoly. This places them under extra obligations that other businesses are not under. Amongst other things, it limits how they are allowed to compete. Trying to crush a competitor by throwing around their monopoly power is totally different than claiming that your product is better than the product of one of your competitors.

One of the things they talk about here is dragging their feet with hardware companies that support Linux, and giving more favorable deals to those who don't. I'd say that's an abuse of monopoly power.