Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Bill Gates is recorded holding smoking gun!

On Feb 13, 9:21 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

One of the biggest problems with the antitrust case is that there are
so many documents and so many hours of testimony that it's really mind-
numbing.  There are about 10,000 documents, and almost 30 hours of
video-tape.  Some of the documents are mildly damaging and others,
like the one below are "smoking guns" in which Bill Gates personally
orders illegal acts.

The Videos are even more frustrating, with someting 2 hours of "what
do you mean by that?", and "I don't remember it that way" and "I don't
think you can interpret it the way you are trying to do, it meant
something [that makes no sense] and it may have been misinterpreted by
you".

This is classic Microsoft legal department.  Look at the document
below.

> ,----[ Quote ]
> | From:       Bill Gates
> | Sent:       Saturday, December 05, 1989 9:44 AM
> | To:         Bob Muglia (Exchange); Jon DeVaan; Steven Sinofsky
> | Cc:         Paul Mariz
> | Subject:    Office rendering
> |
> | One thing we have got to change is our strategy -- allowing Office
> | documents to be rendered very well by OTHER PEOPLES BROWSERS 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 PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.
> |
> | Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has
> | to  to destroy Windows.
> `----
>
> http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02991.pdf

And yet, according to his direct testimony Gates denied trying to
establish a monopoly on the browsers.

The Appeals court looked at letters like this and decided that,
although Microsoft may have legally established the monopoly, actions
such as this were attempts to illegally protect and extend that
monopoly.

It could be very interesting to start a new round of court orders to
find out why WalMart (and others) have made the choice to exclude
other browsers.  It could be because they just wanted to do that, in
which case, it's legal.  If on the other hand, Microsoft conspired
with the MPAA to force all publishers of downloaded movies to permit
ONLY Microft's IE, and to use a secret protocol which has not been
disclosed, then Microsoft is in direct contempt of the Antitrust
ruling and settlement.

Microsoft may be above the law, but it looks like they have so
completely alienated everyone in the industry, that the MARKET may
decide to retailate against Microsoft directly.  300 million copies of
Firefox, 200 million copies of OpenOffice, and 150 million copies of
Linux downloaded in the last year through monitored mirrors, would
indicate that people are getting fed up with Microsoft's antics.

If WalMart really wants to tell 300 million computer users "Fuck you,
go away, we don't want your money", by telling them that they won't
allow them to use the browser of their choice, then maybe all of that
money will go to some other vendor who is willing to be more
flexible.  If the MPAA attempts to enfore a Microsoft monopoly, they
could be charged with Callusion, or lose a huge countersuit.  Even
worse, they could suddenly find that a country outside their
jurisdiction is willing to grant access to movies without the DRM.  In
India, when you go to buy movies, many of the movies are MPEG-DVD
movies, which have no DVD-CSS.




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index