Slashdot Mirror


Groklaw Putting Comes v. Microsoft Docs Online

An anonymous reader writes "PJ of Groklaw is working on putting the documents from Comes v. Microsoft online, to make them searchable and accessible to everyone. If you don't remember their history, the plaintiffs got these documents from Microsoft during discovery after fighting the lawyers tooth and nail. After realizing how embarrassing the documents were to Microsoft, they put them online and later got a very large settlement from Microsoft by agreeing to take their website down. The web being what it is, these documents had already been mirrored and were later (legally) made available on the Pirate Bay. Now Groklaw has put them online and is looking for people to help transcribe them, so that documents like the infamous Evangelism is War presentation will not be forgotten."

25 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Thankful for the Streisand Effect by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After realizing how embarrassing the documents were to Microsoft, they put them online and later got a very large settlement from Microsoft by agreeing to take their website down.

    I'm quite grateful for the Streisand Effect. If not for that, then normally someone who sells out or is (legally) bribed like this removes everyone's access to such information. Too bad those people caved, but that need not cost us the ability to know what they wanted so badly to hide.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    1. Re:Thankful for the Streisand Effect by Suki+I · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Too bad those people caved, but that need not cost us the ability to know what they wanted so badly to hide."

      Note to potential "cavers": You can certainly sanitize the information you plan to agree to keep secret, give it to reliable third parties, then take the money.

      It isn't honest, but there is no reason to be honest with your enemies. We are past the point of moral obligation to such people.

      Doesn't look like they turned it over to anybody. It was mirrored by others and Microsoft made a bad deal. Someone on their team should have known this could happen and advised, like the OP mentions, to ignore it rather than drawing more attention.

    2. Re:Thankful for the Streisand Effect by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Too bad those people caved, but that need not cost us the ability to know what they wanted so badly to hide."

      Note to potential "cavers": You can certainly sanitize the information you plan to agree to keep secret, give it to reliable third parties, then take the money.

      It isn't honest, but there is no reason to be honest with your enemies. We are past the point of moral obligation to such people.

      I don't know why you were modded Troll because what you say is strategically correct. As Sun Tzu advised, all warfare (physical or PR) is based on deception. The use of deception against an aggressor whom you have done nothing to provoke is the only legitimate, morally correct usage of it that I recognize. Whether this case fits that description is the only debatable point.

      Having said that, if you sign a contract stating that you will not disclose information, and you disclose that information, then it's not just dishonest; it's also illegal (or at least, a tort). This is unwise, especially when Microsoft can afford the best lawyers and you cannot. There are times when you have concerns other than how much you can justify without violating your morality, and this is probably one of them. For that reason, I'd strongly advise against actually doing this, making this a bad example of the otherwise sound concepts you mention.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:Thankful for the Streisand Effect by selven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good old Streisand effect. I just downloaded a copy of the evangelism presentation (oh noes, did I infringe MS's copyright?) and read through it. For some reason, learning that something is censored makes me take a lot of effort to find it and read through it carefully, much more than if nothing happened to it. It's probably partly "if it gets censored, it must be interesting" and partly sticking it to the man. Doesn't matter, whatever gets uploaded is out there and will be forever out there and there's nothing anyone can do to stop that.

    4. Re:Thankful for the Streisand Effect by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even James Plamendon, who created Microsoft's Evangelism program, authored that evangelism presentation and is responsible for much of Microsoft's brutal MSOOXML campaign has recanted. He's stated that he regrets his actions and is writing a book about it.

      Yes, I'm sure he's been wringing his hands all the way to the bank.

      A fit of ethics doesn't do much good after the fact, particularly from someone who profited so mightily from it all.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Re:Unbiased this will not be. by mevets · · Score: 5, Informative

    I somewhat doubt microsoft fought and bribed to suppress anything complimentary. I like the way you smear PJ, btw. Wouldn't PJ's best source of income be getting a microsoft bribe to keep the records obscure?

    Being a shill is bad enough, but is anybody even paying you to post this shit, or is this some sort of public service? Groglaw is also a sort of public service, but somehow they have credibility.

  3. Re:Unbiased this will not be. by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you don't like Groklaw, debunk what is presented there.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  4. Talking to one of those who worked on the case... by pcraven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had one of the people working on the case come talk to my college class. The documents provided to the law office were on paper. The office had an impressive cluster of computers used to do optical code recognition on all the documents so that they could be indexed and searched. There were tons of documents. It was not easy technically, and they worked a lot of hours.

    The person I talked to always hoped someone would take this on. They couldn't give up their work for public domain, but there was a ton of computer history contained in those files.

  5. Groklaw Putting Comes v. Microsoft Docs Online by omar.sahal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto standards throughout the computer industry. Our enemies are the vendors of platforms that compete with ours: Netscape, Sun, IBM, Oracle, Lotus, etc. The field of battle is the software industry. Success is measured in shipping applications. Every line of code that is written to our standards is a small victory; every line of code that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat. Total victory, for DRG, is the universal adoption of our standards by developers, as this is an important step towards total victory for Microsoft itself: "A computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software."

    This is why I wish the internet would become a development platform for application (GUI driven in this case). If this was the case the platform wars (to borrow Microsoft terminology) would be over and developers would code for the internet. Google, with chrome os etc, seems to be an ally in this, not that they are benevolent benefactors, just that their business aims and the open source community desires align.
    What would it take to code in any number of languages (in the way we can now code in javascript) for the web.

    1. Re:Groklaw Putting Comes v. Microsoft Docs Online by Mikkeles · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right, just what I want: aircraft flight control systems as PHP code on the internet.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  6. Re:B.b.b..but, M$.... by jthill · · Score: 5, Informative

    When you get out of grammar school they'll teach you about reasoning in a little more detail, but for now, what you did there is called a "false dichotomy", arguing from the premise that only two alternatives are possible.

    It works very well to trap the unwary, because the dishonest part is unspoken.

    If this post is making you angry, perhaps you'd like to put more effort into detecting false premises in your own.

    --
    As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
  7. The Colossal Irony by tjstork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is that right around the same time Microsoft started thinking about using its bulk and business practices to achieve marketing ends, is right around the same time its innovation, risk taking, and other admirable traits about the company slacked off. I mean, yeah, it might have been hurtful to Borland for Microsoft to buy the superior Fox and use it to crush dBase, but at least the market did get a better product. And it might have been wrong to use Windows money to fund the development of Visual Studio to propel it past Turbo C++, but, again, the consumer got a better product. Even IE4 was better than Netscape.

    But this email is from 1997, when MS had won the OS wars, the browser wars, and since then, what has happened? MS has lost its focus on computing entirely. Folding the Windows NT core into the Windows 95 shell to get first Windows NT 4.0 and then Windows 2000 were the best things the company did, and since then, we've had really not much to write home about.

    --
    This is my sig.
  8. Re:Talking to one of those who worked on the case. by diegocg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    there was a ton of computer history contained in those files.

    Indeed! There're many interesting bits in these emails that explain quite well some of the things we suffer every day.

    "One things I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn't try and make the "ACPI" extensions somehow Windows specific. It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work. Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me. Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open. Or maybe we could patent something related to this" - Bill Gates

    "One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered well by others people browser is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPIETARY IE capabilities" - Bill Gates

  9. Re:B.b.b..but, M$.... by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you get out of grammar school they'll teach you about reasoning in a little more detail

    No, they won't. It sure would be nice, though.

    If the (government-owned, government-operated) public schools actually taught logic, argumentation, and critical thinking, thoroughly and exhaustively, it would remove a lot of individuals and interests from power. Imagine if we never had any laws or policies except those that could stand up to rigorous examination. Imagine that clearly enough and you'll see why no one who could arrange that is inclined to let it happen.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  10. It may have been a Slashdotter who mirrored it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Submitter here.

    Yes, it was mirrored by others (thankfully people had the foresight to mirror this stuff right away). In fact, one person who had all the files asked what to do with them (either here or on Groklaw, I don't recall), and I was the one who suggested it be put on the Pirate Bay. I don't know for sure that he took my advice, but I do know that a Comes collection appeared there shortly thereafter.

  11. Re:Talking to one of those who worked on the case. by selven · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can we have an example of an open format that Microsoft can't implement? And no, the GPL does not prevent a proprietary software maker from making a compatible application.

  12. Re:Show me. by Xtifr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    please cite *one* case where an open standard was deliberately obstructing to MS.

    Keep in mind who we're discussing here. When your goal is to leverage your monopoly -- to lock your customers in and your competitors out -- then open standards are deliberately obstructive! :)

  13. Re:Talking to one of those who worked on the case. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "To be fair it's not like the other side go out of their way to make their 'standards' easy for Microsoft to implement."

    Let's be fair and accurate. You totally mischaracterized Bill Gates' position. The email doesn't say lets not go out of our way to make the stuff easier for others to implement, it says we should go out of our way to make it so others cannot implement it . The two are completely different, and worlds apart.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  14. Re:Well, no... by tjstork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you see the Google Chrome OS as something Google is trying to use to take over every computer, which is certainly not true. Google wants to use it to create a new class of computer, a netbook that only does internet and nothing else.

    Well you miss the point. First off, the question was really, what would the world be like if Google dominated computing as much as Microsoft did, and therefor, my "dystopian fantasy" was a viable answer. Google's business model envisions everyone accessing their data on third party computers with dumb internet only appliances. Therefor, to be a host, you have to get Google's permission, and, consumers will never own their data. That's what this is.

    --
    This is my sig.
  15. Re:Show me. by Arker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Keep in mind who we're discussing here. When your goal is to leverage your monopoly -- to lock your customers in and your competitors out -- then open standards are deliberately obstructive! :)

    Precisely!

    More people need to understand this. It's clear MS does - but on our side most people still seem to be under the illusion that it is somehow possible to play fair and get along with MS. It isnt. It never was. From their point of view you are either helping them develop lock-in and total control of each and every PC in the world, or you are against them and they will stop at nothing to destroy you.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  16. Re:Show me. by mevets · · Score: 3, Informative

    While patents are clearly BS protectionism, what you describe is an extra layer of BS. Patents do not work that way at all. You can only patent a method, not an implementation. You cannot selectively license a patent (0|+inf). You are intentionally mixing ideas from copyright and patent to create bullshit.

    If it "would not be hard to do...", please do. Otherwise, being shamed as a bullshitting shill will lose you your $241 bonus.

  17. Time, perspective. by symbolset · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you had enjoyed the benefit of playing with SVR2 through a 30" high def graphical terminal in 1984 as I did, Microsoft's "innovations" in Windows 2000 some 15 years later might seem a bit less amazing. In 1984 we had aerial photos on LaserDisc overlaid with terrain data that we could draw on, and real-time position data in a distributed database with mesh networking for geotracking important operational assets. You could take a bomb to all but one node in the system, and that last node would stay up and have the latest propagated data. Yes, it took three or four seconds to redraw when you shifted scale or moved the map, but it was 1984. We had csh, ksh, X-Windows with widgets that looked better than W2k's. Networking was assumed. It was a multiuser system with an evolved system of managing user security that persists to this day. This was about nine months after Microsoft had invented the remarkable "subdirectory" concept with DOS 2.0, and 14 years before they included an IP stack by default. </sarcasm>.

    Back then it took about 12 minutes to draft a professional one page letter using a CPT dedicated word processing station with full-page WYSYWIG and a SCSI daisy wheel printer. Today you can do a Google maps mashup of your own Cell GPS geolocation data in real time, and it takes about 25 minutes to craft a one-page letter. So the advantage of 25 years of progress is that technolgies are cheaper and more common and individuals are less effective.

    A default install of SVR2 included development tools - grep, lex, yacc, awk, sed, an assembler, compiler, and cross-compiler for new hardware architectures, the source for the OS and all the tools, an ip stack including email. It was a multiuser environment. The processor performance graph, to give an example, included an animated graph of the pen writing the data on the scrolling log - an unnecessary but artful use of screen space that I miss to this day.

    Rock solid? Windows 2000? Give me a break! If you think W2k was rock solid you have low standards.

    Microsoft marketed Windows 2000 as the most secure Windows version ever,[15] but it became the target of a number of high-profile virus attacks such as Code Red and Nimda.[16] Over nine years after its release, it continues to receive patches for security vulnerabilities nearly every month.

    Windows 2000 was a remarkable advance in the scope of "Microsoft operating systems". People who know better found nothing special in it. It wasn't as good as eight year old Jolix then, and it still isn't.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  18. Agree by symbolset · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One might imagine his handwashing will be as enthusiastic as his evangelism was. In order to extract the maximum marketability from his confession it's necessary that he embellish it until it was even more diabolical than it actually was.

    I'm not giving him a pass here - the man promoted the evil prevention of progress in a most effective way. I'm just pointing out that much like his efforts then were, his efforts to promote his book will be equally self-serving.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Agree by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We don't need an "insider's account" to know how the OOXML scam went down. No one, least of all Microsoft, was being very secretive about it. That was really the most amazing thing about the process. Everyone knows Microsoft loathes and fears open standards, but it was that they pulled off the whole thing with such arrogance and lack of concern. They knew damned well there would be no consequences, that everyone would shrug, and that loyal vile little toadies like Icaza would go around trumpeting their shitty, still partially proprietary "standard".

      That's why I'm rooting for Google. I'm sure they're already well on the way to Evil Empire status, but as governments seem utterly unwilling to imprison guys like Ballmer and fine the companies substantially fractions of their net worth so that the investors can directly feel the agonies of the company's misdeeds, about the only thing we can hope for is some other bunch of vile immoral septic-tanks-for-souls can do the current lot in.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  19. Re:Not that bad really by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What precisely is healthy about stacking panels and planting stories? I think you've been working for Satan too long.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.