Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Tries To Prevent Further Discovery
An anonymous reader notes the considerable irony in Microsoft asking for relief from further discovery in the Windows Vista Capable debacle. This is the lawsuit that was recently granted class-action status, and Microsoft wants the wheels of justice to stop while it appeals that designation. It's easy to see why Microsoft wants to prevent further digging around in their and their OEMs' email archives, with stories like this one from the NYTimes (registration may be required) revealing Redmond's highly embarrassing internal emails to a mass audience.
chair throwing contest starting in 10...
Why UNIX?
After, all that discovery is only producing documents which will torpedo their appeal of class action status.
Can't have that, can we?
They obviously need to hire the White House email administrators.
Problem solved.
A family member needed a new laptop. Dell (business side) with XP filled the bill. Since I could not get them to go 0$X, this was the next best thing. The bonus is that a dual core machine with a GB of memory will fly on XP. My tech support will be less. I had Windows Me once, so I see where this is going. As my MS machines die, Apple will get more sales.
How is that not acceptable? If they labeled systems misleadingly then they should be paying to help clean up the mess they caused.
I.e. it would cut even further into Vista sales.
and would jeopardize Microsoft's goodwill with class members.
What does this mean in normal human language, rather than lawyerspeak???
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
When I bought a laptop a few months ago, even the sales people were telling me how much Vista sucks (despite the fact that some of the stores didn't even sell XP laptops anymore so they were sure to lose a sale). When the people selling PCs are actively discouraging customers from buying newer systems with newer operating systems, Microsoft clearly have a problem... so I'm not surprised they want to hide their dirty laundry rather than have it exposed in the press.
Really, i don't get it. As an IT professional working in the Small Business market, i paid close attention to Windows Vista. It was the new whizbang that was supposed to come out Nov 06, played with all the betas and informed myself. I remember reading the document detailing the requirements "Vista Premium Ready" and "Vista Capable". It was obvious that the "Vista Capable" label just meant that the machine could run Vista - nothing more, nothing less. You wouldn't have fun with such an underpowered machine.
So for me it was obvious - we recommended customers to buy machines which at least qualified for Vista Premium ready. Many of them have since upgraded to Windows Vista, and are quite content with what they have.
Readiness for new operating systems is important - especially with such security and driver model improvements that Vista shipped with. My company is now running Vista on 90% of all the desktops (the rest are running unsupported legacy applications on a variety of operating systems). We're around 35 people.
Upgrading to Vista was no problem, not even the hardware. We have IBM/Lenovo ThinkCentre machines, of which even two-three year old machines could easily run Vista, with an additional amount of memory installed.
Now what are those people complaining about? That they didn't research what "Vista Capable" entails? That they have no clue on how to do IT?
I don't understand the lawsuit - if they would've informed themselves, they wouldn't have had the problem. And the machines CAN run Windows Vista - all the editions. Just Aero and Moviemaker won't work without a proper graphic card, but that's not much of a problem.
That's what you get for allowing multi gigabyte PST files.
Oh, the sweet irony.
Deleted
If, somehow, discovery ceases- can I now use this case to prevent litigators from finding out potentially damaging things about me?
The one thing Microsoft were always great at was marketing. Now, apart from the mess they've already got themselves into, they're still not seizing the great way out that's been presented to them. All they have to do is give away some vouchers that are only useful if you have Vista (that's basically how class action lawsuits end) and make a big splash out of how the only problems with Vista were the substandard hardware originally approved for it when in fact to get the power of Vista you need the latest kit. This is easy stuff. Anyone should see it. Why the hell would they think they're better of pretending that the crap performance people are seeing is Vista working properly? That isn't going to make them a penny.
Bait and switch.
Ack, bugmenot is not working. Here is a link to the article that doesn't require registration.
http://biz.yahoo.com/nytimes/080309/1194753587951.html?.v=4
In short, it would be faster to print all the emails and shred them.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The class is not limited to current members (who have already signed up as being pissed). Further digging and media time also tells those people that were suckered but did nothing that there is a class action and brings them into the action.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Can someoen please explain to me the "irony" that the original poster makes reference to?
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
On one hand, there's Microsoft keeping money saved on lawsuits and salaries, preventing anyone besides themselves (and probably few of themselves at that) from knowing just how much money they extract from you and trying to seem like a Good Corporate Citizen (TM).
On the other hand, there's your interest in saving the money that Microsoft has only been able to demand because they've been able to keep their pricing scheme secret from you.
Microsoft says that money in their pockets is more important than money in your pockets. Colour me unsurprised.
How is that not acceptable? If they labeled systems misleadingly then they should be paying to help clean up the mess they caused.
You're operating under the assumption that the case against Microsoft is valid. Since the case has not yet been decided, the court cannot operate under that assumption. During discovery the court has to weigh the cost to Microsoft against the probability that information germane to the case at hand will be revealed. Civil litigation frequently involves analysis of this kind.
If the court allowed every single discovery motion, cases would never be resolved and the cost of litigation would be higher than it already is. I'm not saying that this motion shouldn't be allowed, but the courts don't have the luxury of deciding the case first, then making discovery rulings on that basis.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
It's just getting interesting.
... who thought from the very beginning, having experience with minimum sys reqs and having the ability to see through marketing, that 'capable' meant: It can boot and nothing more?
And BTW (this rule always aplies...): always get informed about a product first before you buy it. I can't say this enough times. There are always products that may have downsides/flaws.
Here be signatures
How about giving kdawson a weekend off?
I just wanted to point out the "narrow" and "long" parts with "experiences,etc." If we used those words alone, then Vista is a very long and narrow OS, unlike others, even other MS OSes, that were much broader (in capability and compatibility).
-Aegis Runestone-
On the grounds that it makes my client look bad!
Perhaps people should invest all of this effort into learning and improving Linux, instead of relying on Microsoft's monopoly to provide software that isn't really what people want on a mass scale. Too many people are complaining about Vista.
The funniest and the saddest line in the NYT article came at the end, "Now that Microsoft faces a certified class action, a judge may be the one who oversees the fix. In the meantime, where does Microsoft go to buy back its lost credibility?" This qualifies as news. Microsoft still has credibility to lose?!?
In short, this is a class-action lawsuit based on some people expecting a whooshier, flashier UI from Vista.
A UI the the Slashdot Hivemind (TM) assures us is completely useless.
But of course, a bunch of whiny tech know-nothings being deprived of said UI is a crime against humanity according to the Slashdot Hivemind (TM).
Gotcha.
PS.
Only in America would something like this require divulging internal e-mail, etc. It's ridiculous.
DS.
At this stage of the case, the court needs to make the guess. Based on what's already been revealed it is hard to say that (a) there is no case -or- (b) there is no further information.
Any judge who was to try whitewash this one would be comitting professional suicide.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Terrible error.
You should not be allowed to post comments on Slashdot if you don't know some basic things about the software industry. For example, since April 1, 1994 Microsoft Owns the Catholic Church.
Also, the U.S. government is NOT a subsidiary of Microsoft. They are both subsidiaries of the same organization, "Do Evil if You Can". For example, see Remarkable occurrences involving the Bush family.
MSFT lower pricing on Vista misses the point entirely, as the NYT article so eloquently points out. Vista causes too many bad experiences. Perhaps with SP1. I tried to use it on my work system so that I could show off our own Vista-ready capabilities (http://www.pcdoctor-community.com/pcdblog/2007/10/02/vista-begone-my-windows-xp-upgrade/). Terrible experience that resulted in my "upgrade" back to XP. Ask any of the big OEMs about how much Vista they are shipping into the enterprise. I have, and the answer is next to nothing. And I bet they are getting killed with support calls because of MSFT's misssteps.
The philosophical question of the day. What is Microsoft protecting more- it public "image" or it treasure trove of bullshit (that is so 80's- the new word is spin)? They may want to reuse some of this for Windows 7 as oppose to actually do some actual software engineering.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
While it would be illegal to deliberately delete emails while under an investigation where those emails may be (and have been) subpoenaed, one must remember, MS may be hoping for the "WhiteHouse" defense: "Oh, you wanted emails from when? " I'm sorry our email retention policy deletes emails from our servers after 2 months. They are also purged from all backups in order to limit our exposure to indefinitely retained emails." Didn't the Bush White House use that excuse as a reason for not having any emails for an earlier time period requested in an investigation?
Would it be "unreasonable" since MS isn't a financial institution, to institute (or officially claim to) a policy that deletes old emails after a certain date by default? Could they claim that it was standard business practice and use that as a defense for why discovery might find no emails for a given period?
How gullible are our courts? Or would MS have to be proven to have willfully and deliberately deleted evidence?
Hmmmm....
This is the kind of monumental blunder that should get the CEO fired!
If it has a DivX sticker on it then you'd be upset when the disk doesn't play.
No sig today...
The headline looked like it said "Microsoft tries to PATENT further discovery"
all your ideas are belong to us
If you believe putting "Vista Capable" on something that does indeed run Vista, but doesn't run the whole whoosh-whoosh warrants a class action lawsuit for "fraud", the...
*I realize I am arguing with the Hivemind*
Oh well, never mind.
The slashdot community has been saying how much Vista sucks for how long now? There was even a topic today about how some nvidia cards were benchmarked better under Ubuntu (and Solaris for that matter) than they do under Vista - and these are "Vista Capable" cards. Anyone buying a Vista machine should already know what they are getting themselves into. The Microsoft employees who were bitching in their emails about how they now have a "$2100 email machine" are even more retarded. These guys were in the loop on the whole crappy driver thing and they STILL fell for their own trick. Fools.
The sad thing is, Microsoft's OS market share won't even feel this law suit. When all is said and done, they will still have 90%+ of the OS market (or whatever they have). Something like this should wake up the consumer and corporate worlds to see they have been paying out the ass for trashy software - but it won't. This isn't their first lawsuit that should wake the world up to their shady practices and shoddy coding and it won't be the last. When Windows 2016 comes out, and it forces you to pay 3 years salary for new hardware because it won't run on your "old" machine, people will do it all over again. Microsoft isn't wrong by thinking their customers are mindless sheep.
geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
... was that I looked at a Vista machine at a store and discovered that you can't reduce the Vista partition below 50% of the drive. Partition Magic and other tools don't work on Vista partitions and you have to use the built-in Microsoft tool.
All of my machines are dual boot (or multiple boot) with at least one Linux and possibly up to 3 (two Fedora versions plus Ubuntu), and I normally reduce Windows to less than a quarter of the drive. (I mainly use Windows to run an old version of Quick Books and the current year's tax program, neither of which run on Linux.)
I know what I'm getting with XP. Vista is a step into the unknown, but I know there will be problems.
You can do whatever you want to auto-purge old e-mail from the database, but there are always server backups. Sometimes the mail database server backup is co-mingled with other (non-email) server backups, and sometimes those tapes are retained for a lot longer than the e-mail retention period. In some cases, you have tapes that are deliberately retained for a year or maybe even forever, if it was done at a certain point in the backup schedule.
And then we have the database itself, where deleted objects are not necessarily deleted until a few extra steps are taken. Nothing is really gone until the deallocated free space that used to belong to the deleted objects is reclaimed and overwritten. Then we have local e-mail client programs (e.g. Outlook), who might be downloading from the server and retaining messages indefinitely. And if we're really lucky, those local PST files are getting swept up into some kind of desktop backup system.
My old (non-technical) boss returned from a meeting one day with a revelation about how we needed a 90-day deletion policy for e-mail. One of the other big wigs at another company was proclaiming the virtue of making e-mail disappear after 90 days. The deal was that no employee would ever be held accountable for lost mail over 90 days old because it was designed to be lost. But it would be (theoretically) unavailable via the discovery process in the event of a law suit.
I patiently explained to the boss that such policies have many ways to technically fail. I could find several ways to force that company to turn over their backup tapes, which would probably allow their database to be scavenged for all kinds of interesting stuff. If not, there are PST files sitting on PC's, ready for harvesting.
Beyond the logistics of retention policies, there is the concept of helpful e-mail that proves your point vs. unhelpful e-mail which proves the opponent's case. The unhelpful e-mail always has a way of turning up, no matter what you do (especially if the message involved another company). Meanwhile, the helpful messages will never be voluntarily turned over by your adversary. After all, the other side might have an e-mail retention policy as well.
Ultimately e-mail retention policies simply bring a new level of desperation to find what the policy was supposed to make invisible.
>>Ballmer is clearly re-tossing the deck chairs on RMS Vis^Titanic.
>What does RMS has to do with Vista?
You can see the exponential symbol, so I'm pretty sure it's this RMS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square
"is wrong, since you're not."
Uh-huh.
"Second, you fail to understand the issue."
Uh-huh.
"Third, you'd do well in stopping now, since the hole you're digging is only getting deeper."
Oh noes! How will I get up?
"Fourth, you appear to be a moron."
Oh noes!
"See the above three points for why, including the third, which you are soon about to break, again."
So, I'm a moron because I would "...do well in stopping now, since the hole you're digging is only getting deeper"? That's just moronic!
All 19 hijackers were known terrorists 09-10-2001. Lack of FBI intelligence does not justify warrantless wiretaps..