Slashdot Mirror


New Microsoft Dirty Tricks Revealed

Conrad Mazian writes "Robert X. Cringely has an article on the Technology Evangelist web site where he claims that Microsoft destroyed evidence in the Burst vs Microsoft case. Specifically Burst's lawyers had asked for certain emails, Microsoft claimed that they couldn't find the backup tapes the emails would be on, and while this was happening the tapes were in a vault at Microsoft — until they mysteriously disappeared. It's a fascinating story, and even names one person at Microsoft."

41 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, NO! by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, No! A corporation wrangles, delays, misplaces, obfuscates in the face of a lawsuit. Heaven's, what is the world coming to?

    Microsoft must be the very first to EVER do this.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:Oh, NO! by eno2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not like the story is looking at this wide-eyed and saying that this is the first time it's ever happened. We all know it happens all the time. The main point, is what can be done to stop this sort of thing from happening short of killing all business owners who resort to this type of evil behavior. There is nothing noble about it, therefore it shouldn't be defended nor should it be ignored or allowed to continue. This type of behavior should be brought out in the open, the perpetrators brought to justice and the business made to pay for it's crimes. Frankly, I'd love to see them all lined up and shot, but that's just me. I'm in this business purely for technical interests and could give a rats ass about anyone making a buck.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    2. Re:Oh, NO! by TommydCat · · Score: 3, Funny
      --
      This comment does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the author.
    3. Re:Oh, NO! by CHacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How exactly is this pandering to the Anti-Microsoft element on slashdot?

      It is a story about a company that when faced with legal action regarding their behavior deliberately destroyed/hid evidence that showed they as corporate entity were perfectly aware that their behavior was wrong in the legal sense.

      The fact that corporations routinely do this is completely irrelevant. All this story is exposing is a pattern of behavior on the part of Microsoft with regards to compliance with the law, or in this case a complete disregard for the law. While it may be redundant as the case against Microsoft has been made time and time again it isn't pandering to the anti-Microsoft zealots. It may be embarrassing to the pro-Microsoft evangelists, but we all know they are nuts ;-).

      If Apple, Red Hat or Novell had done something similar they would be called on it. However, none of those corporate entities have done anything like that to my knowledge. But Microsoft has. And considering that Microsoft products are on ~85% of the PCs out there makes it relevant to the slashdot community.

    4. Re:Oh, NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, no! Some guy goes out and kills his workmates in a rage. Clearly, he must be the first to do it.

      Oh, no! Your SO is cheating on you. How terrible! Must be the first time...

      Oh, no! A country gets attacked, some thousand lives are lost, rage prevails and two countries are invaded, hundreds of thousands killed, civil wars started to further break the lives of millions. Must be the first in history!

      Oh, no... People drink and drive under influence and kill innocent ones. Heck, I bet this never happened before!

      ---

      What amazes me is not the repetition of the eroding tactic (i.e., downplaying a fact as not that serious). When you have no defense even crying Wolf! will do...

      But:

      a) how they get this promoted to insightful? Do they have "infiltrated" people here? With karma to burn?

      b) or are there morons here who vote for this willingly as insightful?

    5. Re:Oh, NO! by magixman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously, I know Microsoft is supposed to be evil and all, but even Disney does this. Just about every one, corporate, individual, government, does this type of thing when faced with a lawsuit. I'm not saying its right, but I think the only reason this one made Slashdot was because it was Microsoft and there is, admittedly, a hefty anti-Microsoft Knee-Jerk element here.
      It doesn't make it right. But people get away with it. Remember a guy named Frank Quattrone. Sent around a mail to his employess asking them to "clean up" their files before a grand jury inquiry. He was inicted but he got off (barely). Now this was a grand jury and not a civil proceeding and still he walked. So unless some one comes out and testifies that "Ballmar told me to do it", it will remain just a good Slash Dot read.
    6. Re:Oh, NO! by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Destroying evidence is illegal even if you are not the first one to do it.

      Honestly your defense of MS consists of "everybody else does it". Isn't it amazing what the defenders of MS have been reduced to.

      Not every business breaks the law. Some do, but many don't. Please don't defame the entire business community and capitalism itself by saying that every business breaks the law.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    7. Re:Oh, NO! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Funny
      Microsoft must be the very first to EVER do this.

      A fine counter-argument. I'm surprised it isn't used more often.
      "Come on, Your Honor, it's not like I'm the first to EVER commit this crime!"

    8. Re:Oh, NO! by sgt_doom · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Unfortunately, Microsoft has a lengthy history of this sort of behavior. Certainly, it's no coincidence that a long-time legal firm in Seattle which boasts a number of labor sweatshops as clients (and formerly employed one Jack Abramoff as their Washington, D.C., lobbyist) was named Preston, Gates, Ellis (they have merged with another firm and now go under a different name).

      One repeatedly hears M$ touted as an example of postive capitalistic behavior. Puuhlease....Bill Gates is the one who was behind a state labor law passed in Washington back in 2000 by their Department of Labor and Industry which puts an earnings cap on independent contractors!!! Why they should care when they are offshoring soooo many jobs - I guess it's just spite plus amorality......

      But on the plus side, their new media stuff sure looks just like Apple's....

  2. Jesus Christ! by His+name+cannot+be+s · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is *real* journalism:

      - Nth hand unverified, information (My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious. )

      - this is about stuff along time ago. ... the headline here said somehting about Microsoft's "NEW" dirty tricks? WTF?

      - There is a lot suspect in what's being claimed in the article as well.

    Well, as the tagline says:

    --
    "...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
    1. Re:Jesus Christ! by stubear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree but did you read the comments? A user named Bob Cringley claims to have corraborating evidence and while he names the source as anonymous, they are not anonymous to him. WTF?!? If he had corraborating evidence he should have mentioned it in the article don't you think? What can you expect when it's a story about Microsoft allegedly doing something bad though?

    2. Re:Jesus Christ! by Joebert · · Score: 5, Funny

      What can you expect when it's a story about Microsoft allegedly doing something bad though?

      The corraborating evidence comes up missing ?
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    3. Re:Jesus Christ! by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Funny

      I heard, from a second hand but reliable source, that evidence destruction goes all the way up to Steve Ballmer.

      He's mostly just in charge of the destruction of chair evidence though.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    4. Re:Jesus Christ! by multisync · · Score: 2, Informative

      - Nth hand unverified, information (My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious. )


      According to Cringley:

      The former Microsoft contract employee who contacted me on this issue did not do so anonymously, by the way. I know his name and how to reach him. We have talked on the phone more than once. He did not hesitate to name names.


      You are welcome to question whether Cringley is being truthful or not, but why should I belive your assertation that the source was a friend's sister's boyfirend's ... whatever?

      - this is about stuff along time ago. ... the headline here said somehting about Microsoft's "NEW" dirty tricks? WTF?


      I think what is new is our knowledge that Microsoft is being accused of destroying evidence. The allegations are new. Cringley said in the article you apparently didn't bother to read:

      Now that the (Iowa) case is settled I'd like to write a little bit about something that happened in an earlier case - Burst v. Microsoft - but was never revealed. I kept expecting it to be revealed in this case, but apparently it was not.


      Mind you, there is no date on this blog entry (I couldn't even find a Cringley byline, only a link to an audio version that gives his name), but the comments are dated Feb 15. So the allegations are current.

      There is a lot suspect in what's being claimed in the article as well.


      There is also a lot that sounds pretty damning, like:

      lawyers for Burst.com found in the discovery phase of their case what appeared to be a pattern of message destruction, with Microsoft unable to reproduce ANY e-mail concerning Burst.com over periods of time surrounding specific meetings between the two companies. Burst had ITS copies of the messages where it had been part of the conversation as the two companies worked together under NDA, but Microsoft presented none of these. It seemed logical to Burst that Microsoft, as a company that fairly lives by e-mail, would have atg least a few messages concerning the meetings, either before or after. Eventually Burst lawyers uncovered a mechanism -- a sort of procedural algorithm if you will -- under which Microsoft had consistently and in MANY cases managed to keep all the messages it didn't need to keep and to destroy all the ones it DID need to keep. The survival of ANY incriminating messages, in fact, came only from the breakdown of discipline in implementing this procedural algorithm. Burst revealed this information and the judge in that case, Judge Motz, ordered Microsoft to take heroic measures to search backup tapes for messages that were supposedly lost.


      Sorry for the long quote, but I think this lends credibility to what is being asserted by the source Cringley has so far not named.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
  3. And your point? by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Informative

    These days when you are as large as microsoft is, it doesnt really matter if you break the law.

    If you do, and actually get caught, you get some token fine and you chalk it up as a cost of doing business and move on.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:And your point? by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Which is why Enron is still around...

    2. Re:And your point? by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is why Enron is still around...

      Enron is not gone because they broke the law and got obliterated for it, Enron is gone because the reality that they actually had no money overtook their fiction and they collapsed into overnight bankruptcy. Legal recourse against Enron only really began after it was long gone, and was against the company's directors.
  4. Not completely right... by physicsboy500 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft didn't loose the tapes, it's just that the backup server was being run by Vista!

    --
    The original generic sig.
    1. Re:Not completely right... by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 3, Funny

      ``it's just that the backup server was being run by Vista!''

      And the DRM wouldn't let them access the content?

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  5. New? by NoTheory · · Score: 3, Informative

    As far as i am aware these aren't new allegations, i remember hearing about this back as far as 2 years ago at least. Some casual googling turns up documents from that time period.

    --
    There are lives at stake here!
  6. names by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a fascinating story, and even names one person at Microsoft.

    Oooh! It names someone at Microsoft. I'll tell you, but you gotta keep it a secret, okay? Bill Gates. Shhhh, don't tell anyone I told you...

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  7. the irony by troll+-1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft was saying that it couldn't find the tapes and that it would take millions of man-hours to search for them ...

    And Microsoft wants to be number one in search?

    1. Re:the irony by truthsearch · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you have a longer-lasting cost effective backup solution for truely massive amounts of information? Just the migration from a system that's been in place for decades would cost millions.

  8. Here's the second part by SEMW · · Score: 5, Informative

    Cringely posted the story in two parts, but the summary only links to the first. Second part here.

    --
    What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  9. I swear I had no choice to hide the tapes! by alexandreracine · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ballmer duck tape me to the wall, and told me "I'LL f**king kill you!" and threaten to throw a chair at me!

    --
    No sig for now.
  10. Re:Nothing to see here...move along by Teresita · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An even bigger issue is how Microsoft has lifted man kind...The PC would not exist without them...

    Nonsense, if Micro$oft never bought the CPM rip-off 86-DOS and renamed it "PC-DOS 1.0" Gary Kildall at Digital Research would have just marked CPM directly to IBM and today we'd all be running GEM XP.

  11. Huge cost effective backup by symbolset · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I believe what you're looking for is called "Archive.org"

    How large is the Wayback Machine?

    The Internet Archive Wayback Machine contains almost 2 petabytes of data and is currently growing at a rate of 20 terabytes per month. This eclipses the amount of text contained in the world's largest libraries, including the Library of Congress.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  12. It's sad... by Xenographic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only way to kill an evil company appears to be to bankrupt it.
    What on earth does it take to revoke a corporate charter these days?

  13. Re:Microsoft's M.O. by Duhavid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "They generate a large fraction of the US GNP, "

        They do? And assuming they do, is that a get out of jail free card?
        If so, why?

    "they make the software that has made computers cheap and ubiquitous for everybody on the planet,"

        There were many others in that game too, till they were crushed.
        And they have made a very pretty penny from it.
        And it is not like it would not have happened anyway ( there is nothing all that special about Microsoft
            in that regard )

    "and Bill Gates personally funds one of the largest charities in the world."

        Again, is this a get out of jail free card? Why do you bring it up?
        Is it OK to destroy evidence because you donate money to a charity?

    "Now, if I can only get one of their salespeople to call me back about a large new installation I'm getting ready to do..."

        Good luck on that.

    --
    emt 377 emt 4
  14. Re:According to Slashdot logic by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The patents are generic and Burst pulled the same shit with Apple, claiming they infringed them as well.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  15. One small problem by Wolfraider · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Any one noticed one big problem in this post. All of Microsoft's email is stored in pst files? Wouldn't they be using a email system like Microsoft Exchange that stores all emails on the server? It does not make sense from a company standpoint to download all email to your desktop at work and not have it available anywhere.

    1. Re:One small problem by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. If this one company can't archive emails successfully, what does that say for the likely success of sarbanes-oxley compliance in the US business world?

      I'm kind of confused why this story is being treated as it is in the comments. MS is supposed to be helping other businesses avoid the possibility of losing data... hmmmmm MS wants to be the preferred supplier of software to government agencies and this is a bad mark on them if you ask me. Sure, they might have lost tapes which is not part of their software per se' but they are supposed to be designing software / systems that provide REALLY good backup processes in mind. If you can't demonstrate that you know how backup processes should work, perhaps your software shouldn't be used by anyone with legal requirements to backup data?

  16. Re:How convenient by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Funny

    I had a dog eat my home work once. Actualy is was more then once but i finaly figured out the problem. We used to put peanut butter in the dogs chew toys as a reward for doing something good like not tearing anything up when we left him along or comming when called.

    Well, long story short, When I would eat a peanut butter sandwich while doing my homework the dog would seem interested in my backpack that night. When I left the zipper open or worse yet, it broke fro shoving too much stuff in it, the dog went in and ate the papers I was working on while eating the peanut butter sandwich.

  17. Re:And your point, redux? by runningduck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Enron is not gone because the reality that they actually had no money overtook their fiction, Enron is gone because they changed their name to CrossCountry Energy Corp. While most of their business activities stopped they were too well connected to just disappear.

    http://www.enron.com/corp/pressroom/releases/2003/ ene/062503release.html
    http://www.igorinternational.com/press/bloomberg-c orporate-business-name.php - read down a bit.
    http://money.cnn.com/2002/02/22/news/enron_roundup /index.htm?
    --
    -rd
  18. Re:So that makes it OK? by earthbound+kid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because if the dude is serious at all, he knows, "Just hold out until Saturday at 7pm, and boom! All glory to Cobra Commander!" In a ticking time bomb situation, a terrorist who has the balls to murder a million people won't just pussy out because we pull out his fingernails or whatever. If we're asking him where the bomb will go off, he knows it hasn't gone off yet, so he just needs to send you off on a wild goose chase from now until it does.

    Meanwhile, how do we know for sure that the military pulled the right guy off the street? It makes sense to have a trial to be sure about it. Once the trial is through, give him the electric chair. But don't go torturing people who you haven't proved are guilty and have nothing to gain from spilling the beans and everything to gain from making up some crap and waiting for the clock to hit zero hour.

  19. That's why Burst won the courtcase by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If I remember correctly, Burst started a court case against Microsoft for patent infringement a few years ago (one of those that we all love on Slashdot), and Microsoft paid them about $60 million in settlements. The court case looked very bad for Microsoft, not because there was any evidence of any wrongdoing, but because Microsoft had "lost" emails exactly for a critical time period, but not others just before or just after that time period. These are exactly the emails that this article is about.

    To the courts, it doesn't make much difference whether you say "sorry, we lost these emails by accident" and say the truth, or you say "we destroyed these emails, take that!" and say the truth or not, or whether you say "sorry, we lost these emails" and are in fact hiding them. In each case, the emails are not there, and the courts will assume that whatever they might have contained was not good for you. So whether Microsoft really lost these emails or was just hiding them, it doesn't matter.

    Similar, if you are taken to court because someone claims you downloaded music illegally, and you just happen to format your harddisk by accident, you are in deep shit. And it doesn't matter whether there was evidence on that harddisk or not.

  20. Re:So that makes it OK? by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Applying it to the innocent is bad, but even applying it to the guilty isn't that great -- So you cause so much pain that a guy will tell you anything to make you stop. That doesn't mean he'll tell you the truth. Kinda like bullying a kid until he says what you tell him to say. Doesn't mean he actually means it, or isn't just lying to get you to stop.

    --
    Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
  21. Of course they are. by noamsml · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're also white and shiny. I want one!

  22. Stupidity trumps malice here by Myria · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Regardless of your opinion about Microsoft, it seems like this is a case of stupidity of either Microsoft IT or their contractor, not malice. The last thing you want to do when you're being sued is destroy the documents subpoenaed during discovery. Having a corporate policy of deleting all emails regularly is one thing; expressing deleting a document that you know will be subpoenaed is quite another.

    Microsoft's lawyers aren't stupid, though other parts of the company may be. If Microsoft were deleting incriminating documents that are subpoenaed, how does my signature exist? How could these documents be any more damaging than the others that did get released?

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
  23. Re:Microsoft's M.O. by dabraun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "They generate a large fraction of the US GNP, "

            They do? And assuming they do, is that a get out of jail free card?
            If so, why?


    Because, if that's true, then making Microsoft dissapear off the face of the earth would have a significant effect on the economy of the United States. That is, like it or not, more important to the US government than applying absolute justice to Microsoft is.

    That doesn't mean the government can't levy huge fines, etc. They love taking money from people and entities that they have full control over, but if they kill the company, they don't get to take the money anymore ...
  24. Re:So that makes it OK? by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Your complete ignorance of justice is appalling. What jurisprudence would be required for someone to substantiate the truth of the situation. One person (a sexual deviant in a uniform) claims another innocent (by law until proven guilty in a duly appointed court) person confessed about a bomb (did they confess, before or after the torture commenced ?).

    Courts of law are not about punishing the guilty they are about protecting the public from the government and from thugs in uniform. A terrorist suspect is only a suspect because some one 'thinks' or 'decides' they should be one, there is no proof, if there was, that person would be arrested and sent to the courts where the validity of the evidence could be tested and to ensure some incompetent ass wipe didn't falsify the evidence or just outright lied to get promotion or even to hide their own incompetence (if you can't catch the guilty then convicting an innocent can still get you re-elected).

    Consider the long term ramifications. Through out history, torturers where isolated from the rest of the community because any individual they can achieve job satisfaction and a personal sense of accomplishment from the infliction of pain, suffering and degradation upon others, is a dangerously deranged psychopathic individual and a threat to the community. Honestly, would you want a US military approved torturer living next door to you and having access to your family (a thug that listened to the agonised screams of human beings 8 hours a day with out a qualm whilst eating undisturbed meals, sleeping peacefully and collecting what they considered to be their well deserved pay check).

    How many thousands of CIA trained torturers will the US government be releasing upon an unsuspecting public, torturers who no longer have the legal means by which to fulfil those urges they have became accustomed too. Check with any real law enforcement authority and they will tell you exactly what kind of long term threat those individuals who voluntarily participated in that kind of abhorrent behaviour really are.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen