[News] Bill Gates Deposition - Transcripts
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| Boies: Do you remember that in January, 1996, a lot of OEMs were
| bundling non-Microsoft browsers?
|
| Gates: I'm not sure.
|
| Boies: What were the non-Microsoft browsers that you were
| concerned about in January of 1996?
|
| Gates: What's the question? You're trying to get me to recall
| what other browsers I was thinking about when I wrote that sentence?
|
| Boies: No, because you've told me that you don't know what you
| were thinking about when you wrote that sentence.
|
| Gates: Right.
|
| Boies: What I'm trying to do is get you to tell me what
| non-Microsoft browsers you were concerned about in January of
| 1996. If it had been only one, I probably would have used the
| name of it. Instead I seem to be using the term non-Microsoft
| browsers. My question is what non-Microsoft browsers were you
| concerned about in January of 1996?
|
| Gates: I'm sure -- what's the question? Is it -- are you asking
| me about when I wrote this e-mail or what are you asking me about?
|
| Boies: I'm asking you about January of 1996.
|
| Gates: That month?
|
| Boies: Yes, sir.
|
| Gates: And what about it?
|
| Boies: What non-Microsoft browsers were you concerned about in
| January of 1996?
|
| Gates: I don't know what you mean "concerned."
|
| Boies: What is it about the word "concerned" that you don't
| understand?
|
| Gates: I'm not sure what you mean by it.
`----
http://wincent.com/a/about/wincent/weblog/archives/2007/02/gates_depositio.php
Recent:
Netscape Announces Cross-Platform Netscape 9 to be Developed In-House
,----[ Quote ]
| A subsequent post revealed that Netscape 9 will be released simultaneously
| for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X.
`----
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Gates deposition videos
Yeah, I have the video footage. It's hilarious.
How he thought he could get away with trying to not understand plain english
is beyond me... he kept it up for hours, evading questions by trying to
misunderstand them or not understand the most simple grammar.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
Roy Schestowitz
Maybe he was trying to make the footage so long and tedious that nobody would
bother to watch him admitting that he's as guilty as OJ.
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 21978 x 4 = 21978 backwards
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
11:05am up 19 days 11:23, 6 users, load average: 0.80, 0.40, 0.50
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
Rafael
>>> Gates deposition videos
<SNIP>
>>>| Boies: What I'm trying to do is get you to tell me what
>>>| non-Microsoft browsers you were concerned about in January of
>>>| 1996. If it had been only one, I probably would have used the
>>>| name of it. Instead I seem to be using the term non-Microsoft
>>>| browsers. My question is what non-Microsoft browsers were you
>>>| concerned about in January of 1996?
>>>|
>>>| Gates: I'm sure -- what's the question? Is it -- are you asking
>>>| me about when I wrote this e-mail or what are you asking me
>>>| about?
>>>|
>>>| Boies: I'm asking you about January of 1996.
>>>|
>>>| Gates: That month?
<SNIP>
>> Yeah, I have the video footage. It's hilarious. How he thought he
>> could get away with trying to not understand plain english is
>> beyond me... he kept it up for hours, evading questions by trying
>> to misunderstand them or not understand the most simple grammar.
>
> Maybe he was trying to make the footage so long and tedious that
> nobody would bother to watch him admitting that he's as guilty as OJ.
I thought this quote was apt:
> It's astonishing to see Gates, surely an individual of well above
> average intelligence, petulantly throw up obstacle after obstacle in
> the path of David Boies (the attorney asking the questions),
> stalling, dodging questions, offering implausible explanations,
> claiming not to remember anything, bickering over the meaning of
> common words, and the really puzzling bit: doing all this as though
> he actually thought it would help his case. Of course it didn't;
> Microsoft was found guilty of repeatedly illegally abusing its
> monopoly position and the judge ordered that the company be split up.
> It's a shame that with the change of government in 2000 Microsoft
> wriggled off the hook.
Inasmuch as we see the same charades continue, there is the truth. A
company may purchase parked IP's, purchase advertising, purchase
hardware specific agreements, purchase newspapers, pay columnists,
purchase competition, etc.
One thing they cannot purchase is a person's soul. The will of many
governments in the free world, and to a lesser extent in the non-free
world, consist of sets of people's souls. There is a fundamental human
characteristic or desire that favours freedom over tyranny.
When the proprietary was young, it was favoured as at the time there was
another vendor lock-in regarding mainframes, major minicomputers and
workstations. The generic PC platform became the ideal sense of
freedom, that one did not need to buy vendor specific hardware, but
could go to any number of dealers who provided this generic hardware
clone that was compatible with all other clones of similar venue, and
that at a lower cost. No longer was one required to obtain office
automation functions, engineering and financial analysis and localised
data base functions from a remote system that was very expensive.
Now, once considered as freedom, the proprietary software model that ran
on these clones has become in itself another form of vendor lock-in.
What was once considered a reasonable price to pay has increased to a
non-competitive price without much choice, since it is proprietary, not
generic.
Linux now promises that same freedom by emulating that same model with
the generic hardware in software, that originally spawned the
proprietary software model.
We have seen a quiet, selfless, dedicated rebellion against the
proprietary little by little. There were the more publicised
patriarchs, like Ernie Ball, who felt out of principle to leave the
proprietary, instead of as some of the Winvocates have expressed here,
"pony up the bucks" and remain locked in.
In taking the lead, he found that he is now entered into freedom by
reducing his overhead expenses, increasing his productivity and securing
his net domain.
News of the tyranny expressing that Linux violates proprietary software
patents, which could jeopardise people like Ernie Ball, threats of
lawsuit with people like Brasil's IT minister, Sergio Amadeu for
statements others have made without consequence, threats toward
government officials like Singapore for replacing proprietary office
automation desktop software with OpenOffice, etc., have only helped to
galvanise the Linux and FOSS cause.
People are not stupid, they see through the smug arrogance, smoke
screens and bullying tactics. These same people are the ones who have
been voicing their concerns to their elected/appointed leaders. Those
leaders are not stupid, either.
I see a completely different picture occurring overall in the world
today. There are those who would like us to believe that popular
network statistical organisations present us gospel truth, that so
called certified studies of TCO make proprietary model more cost
effective than the quiet FOSS, etc.
The picture is actually quite different as we hear bits and pieces of
different governments deploying FOSS and Linux. It is happening little
by little, but when it happens, it is now occurring in large
deployments. It is not arithmetic but exponential.
The revolution has already begun and is making great strides.
--
Cheers, Rafael
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
AB
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> Gates deposition videos
>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Gates: I'm not sure.
>> | Gates: What's the question? You're trying to get me to recall
>> | what other browsers I was thinking about when I wrote that sentence?
>> | Gates: I'm sure -- what's the question? Is it -- are you asking
>> | me about when I wrote this e-mail or what are you asking me about?
>> | Gates: That month?
>> | Gates: And what about it?
>> | Gates: I don't know what you mean "concerned."
>> | Gates: I'm not sure what you mean by it.
>> `----
>
> Yeah, I have the video footage. It's hilarious.
> How he thought he could get away with trying to not understand plain english
> is beyond me... he kept it up for hours, evading questions by trying to
> misunderstand them or not understand the most simple grammar.
Well, it must be hereditary. Erik seems to have gotten it from his dad.
--
Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question.
The answer is NO!
Doug Mentohl
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> did eloquently scribble:
> Maybe he was trying to make the footage so long and tedious that
> nobody would bother to watch him admitting that he's as guilty as OJ.
not a beautiful thing to watch ..
Boies: The term browser is a term that is widely used within Microsoft, or
at least was until this year; correct, sir?
Heiner: Objection.
..
Boies: You've written e-mails about browsers; correct, sir?
Gates: I've written e-mails where the term browser was used. I wouldn't say
it was necessarily an e-mail about browsers.
Boies: Have you ever written an e-mail that you considered to be about
browsers, sir?
Gates: I'll bet there's e-mail where the primary subject relates to
browsers. I don't remember a specific piece of e-mail.
..
Boies: Yes. The industry and Microsoft tracks what is referred to as
browser market share; correct sir?
Gates: No.
Boies: No? Does Microsoft track browser market share?
Gates: I'VE SEEN USAGE SHARE.
Boies: You've seen usage share?
Gates: Uh-huh. But not -- market share usually refers to something related
to -- not to usage. And with browsers, I've seen mostly usage. Now, some
people might refer to that as a market share, but it's not a market share.
..
Boies: Are you aware of documents within Microsoft that describe browser
share as the company's number one goal?
Gates: No. I'm aware of documents WITHIN PAUL MARITZ'S GROUP that may have
stated that.
Boies: Is Paul Maritz's group within Microsoft?
Gates: YES, but his -- he doesn't set the company-wide goals.
..
Boies: Now, did you ever tell Mr. Maritz that browser share was not the
company's number one goal?
Gates: No.
..
Boies: Mr. Gates, isn't it the case that YOU TOLD MR. MARITZ THAT BROWSER
SHARE WAS A VERY VERY IMPORTANT GOAL and that's why he believed it?
Gates: I guess now we're delving into the inner workings of Paul Maritz's
mind and how he comes to conclusions?
Boies: Well, let me try to ask you a question that won't require you to
delve into anybody else's mind. DID YOU TELL MR. MARITZ THAT BROWSER SHARE
WAS A VERY VERY IMPORTANT GOAL?
Gates: I know we talked about browser share being important.
Boies: I'm not asking you what he said to you. I'm not asking what topic
you talked about. I'm asking you whether you told Mr. Maritz that browser
share was a very very important goal?
Gates: I REMEMBER THAT WE AGREED THAT IT WAS AN IMPORTANT GOAL. I'm not
sure which one of us reached that feeling before the other.
..
Boies: Did you write Gov. Ex. 295 Mr. Gates, on or about January 5, 1996?
Gates: I don't remember doing so specifically, but it appears that I did.
Boies: And the first line of this is, "WINNING INTERNET BROWSER SHARE IS A
VERY VERY IMPORTANT GOAL FOR US." Do you see that?
Gates: I do.
Boies: DO YOU REMEMBER WRITING THAT, sir?
Gates: NOT SPECIFICALLY.
..
Boies: All right, sir, let me see if I can try to clarify. You say here
"Winning Internet browser share is a very very important goal for us." What
companies were supplying browsers whose share you were talking about?
Gates: It doesn't appear I'm talking about any other companies in that
sentence.
..
Boies: .. WHAT BROWSER USAGE WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF WHAT YOUR
SHARE OF BROWSER USAGE WAS? What browsers?
Gates: I'm not getting your question. Are you trying to ask what I was
thinking when I wrote this sentence?
..
Boies: Let me begin with that. What were you thinking when you - wrote that
sentence?
Gates: I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY WRITING THIS SENTENCE.
..
Gates: I have an answer. The answer is I don't remember.
Boies: You don't remember what you meant. Let me try to ask you -
Gates: I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I WAS THINKING.
Boies: Is there a difference between remembering what you were thinking and
remembering what you meant?
Gates: If the question is what I meant when I wrote it, no.
Boies: So you don't remember what you were thinking when you wrote it and
you don't remember what you meant when you wrote it; is that fair?
Gates: As well as not remember writing it.
..
Boies: What non-Microsoft browsers were you concerned about in January of
1996?
Gates: I don't know what you mean "concerned."
..
Boies: .. What competitive products did you look at in January of 1996 in
terms of browsers?
Gates: I don't remember looking at any specific products during that month.
..
Boies: Do you understand the question, Mr. Gates?
Gates: I'm pausing to see if I can understand is it.
..
Boies: Do you understand what is meant by non-Microsoft browsers?
Gates: In the right context, I'd understand that.
..
Boies: Do all of the non-Microsoft browsers that you're aware of compete
with Internet Explorer?
Gates: In the sense that users select which browsers they want to use, yes.
..
Boies: .. do you at least remember that in January, 1996, winning Internet
browser share was an important goal for Microsoft?
Gates: Yes.
Boies: And with respect to the goal of winning Internet browser share in
1996, was that goal primarily to gain share compared to Netscape?
Gates: Not necessarily.
..
Boies: Let me ask you to look at .. an e-mail from Paul Maritz to you dated
January 16, 1996. It is to you and a number of other people, but you are
the first there. Do you see that?
Gates: Yes. ..
Boies: Did you receive this e-mail in January, 1996?
Gates: I don't remember receiving it, but I have no reason to doubt that I
did.
..
Boies: Even though you don't recall receiving this particular e-mail, do
you recall Mr. Maritz telling you in or about January of 1996 that he
believed that Microsoft had to look carefully at any significant
opportunity to gain share versus Netscape?
Gates: No.
Boies: Do-you recall Mr. Maritz telling you in or about January of 1996
that there was a possibility that AOL was going to go off and partner with
Netscape?
..
Gates: It appears to be a mail about -- let me take a look at it. It
appears to be a mail about OEMs prominently featuring the AOL client in
such a strong way that anything we would do for AOL in that regard would be
of no impact and, therefore, that maybe we should work with AOL on the
browser.
..
Boies: Let me show you a document that has been marked as Gov. Trial Ex.
478. This purports to be a message to you and others from Brad Chase dated
March 13, 1997. Did you receive this message in or about March of 1997?
Gates: I don't remember receiving it. In fact, it's very strange that the
e-mail names aren't expanded. But I probably received it. ..
..
Boies: Were you told in or about March of 1997 that people within Microsoft
believed that browser 'share needed to remain a key priority for your field
and marketing efforts?
Gates: I don't remember being told that, but I wouldn't be surprised to
hear that people were saying that.
Boies: Immediately before that sentence there is a statement that Microsoft
needs to continue its jihad next year. Do you see that?
Gates: No.
Boies: The sentence that says "Browser share needs to remain a key priority
for our field and marketing efforts," the sentence right before that says
"we need to continue our jihad next year." That's the way it ends. Do you
see that?
Gates: Now I see -- it doesn't say Microsoft.
Boies: well, when it says "well there, do you understand that means
something other than Microsoft, sir?
Gates: It could mean Brad Chase's group.
Boies: Well, this is a message from Brad Chase to you, Brad Silverberg,
Paul Maritz and Steve Ballmer, correct?
Gates: As I say, it's strange that this -- if this was a normal piece of
e-mail, it wouldn't print like that. I'm not aware of any way -- maybe
there is some way -- that e-mail ends up looking like this when you print
it out.
Boies: I wasn't the one that was asserting it was an e-mail. I don't know
whether it is an e-mail or memo or what it is. All I know is it was
produced to us by Microsoft. And the first line of it says "To" and the
first name there is "Bradsi." Do you see that?
Gates: Uh-huh.
Boies: Does that refer to Brad Silverberg?
Gates: Usually you can use that shorthand in typing in someone's name, but
when you print out e-mail, it doesn't come out that way.
Boies: Do you believe that the reference here to "Bradsi" is a reference to
Brad Silverberg, sir?
Gates: Yes.
Boies: The next addressee is "Paulma." Do you believe that that is Paul
Maritz?
Gates: Yes.
Boies: And the next addressee is "Steveb". Do you believe that that is
Steve Ballmer?
Gates: Yes.
Boies: The next addressee is "Billg" and do you believe that that is
yourself?
Gates: Yes.
Boies: And it says it's from "Bradc" and do you believe that is Brad Chase?
Gates: Yes.
Boies: Now, when Brad Chase writes to you and the others "we need to
continue our jihad next year," do you understand that he is referring to
Microsoft when he uses the word "we"?
Gates: No.
Boies: What do you think he means when he uses the word "well?
Gates: I'm not sure.
Boies: Do you know what he means by jihad?
Gates: I think he is referring to our vigorous efforts to make a superior
product and to market that product.
Boies: Now, what he says in the next sentence is, "Browser share needs to
remain a key priority for our field and marketing efforts;" is that
correct?
Gates: Yes.
Boies: The field and marketing efforts were not involved in product design
or making an improved browser, were they, sir?
Gates: No.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1998/11/17/gates_video_not_a_beautiful/print.html
nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu
reasons, love, money, but especially for money. You expect it,
especially when someone is trying to sell you something. But at the
same time you also expect there to be limits to the lying, that beyond
a certain point it just gets too bald-faced for anyone to have the
gall to keep putting up the lie. Then you see something like this...
DFS
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:07:18 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> did eloquently
>>> scribble:
>
>> Maybe he was trying to make the footage so long and tedious that
>> nobody would bother to watch him admitting that he's as guilty as OJ.
>
> not a beautiful thing to watch ..
>
> Boies: The term browser is a term that is widely used within
> Microsoft, or at least was until this year; correct, sir?
>
> Heiner: Objection.
ROFL!
> Boies: Are you aware of documents within Microsoft that describe
> browser share as the company's number one goal?
>
> Gates: No. I'm aware of documents WITHIN PAUL MARITZ'S GROUP that may
> have stated that.
>
> Boies: Is Paul Maritz's group within Microsoft?
>
> Gates: YES, but his -- he doesn't set the company-wide goals.
Fair point. Many lying cola idiots misrepresent one MS employee statement
as an official MS position.
*snip*
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/1998/11/17/gates_video_not_a_beautiful/print.html
Great post. Thanks for that one, Daeron.
Gates must have been scared shitless of MS being broken up - some of his
stalling and hedging is hilarious.
Mateus Denigris
Hash: SHA1
On 2007-02-11, spi...@freenet.co.uk spake thusly:
Gates is many things, but they don't include being a moron.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFz3qTlkJ5K/IU2ToRAsHEAKDaq0Q2nbksKD+ppB5wW+hg45hhuwCg4N13
c/xzIbRsjlnY+6GLA7pKy5U=
=Q1Qu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
"Always do the right thing: It will delight / Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanies
some and astound the rest" - Mark Twain / Psychotronic protection, low prices
"Anyone who uses the term 'intellectual property' is either confused or trying
to confuse you." - Richard Matthew Stallman
Mateus Denigris
Hash: SHA1
On 2007-02-11, Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
Does that mean we should be chanting, "No justice, no peace!" ;-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFz3r4lkJ5K/IU2ToRAsFkAJ41ZL3cET3jVP1KWDT1V8G3H8ax1gCg2GCS
WMktBFcrK0vu+uNoLCoYI1g=
=5p8s
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> Yeah, I have the video footage. It's hilarious.
>> How he thought he could get away with trying to not understand plain english
>> is beyond me... he kept it up for hours, evading questions by trying to
>> misunderstand them or not understand the most simple grammar.
>>
> Gates is many things, but they don't include being a moron.
They do in that video.
Handover Phist
> Mateus Denigris <Mat...@teamtuxedo.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>> Yeah, I have the video footage. It's hilarious.
>>> How he thought he could get away with trying to not understand plain english
>>> is beyond me... he kept it up for hours, evading questions by trying to
>>> misunderstand them or not understand the most simple grammar.
>>>
>
>> Gates is many things, but they don't include being a moron.
>
> They do in that video.
Not really. Weaselly as hell and noncooperative while appearing to be
dumber than a bag of hammers yeah, but that (I believe) is an act.
--
Let us live!!!
Let us love!!!
Let us share the deepest secrets of our souls!!!
You first.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> On 2007-02-11, spi...@freenet.co.uk <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Mateus Denigris <Mat...@teamtuxedo.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>>> Yeah, I have the video footage. It's hilarious.
>>>> How he thought he could get away with trying to not understand plain english
>>>> is beyond me... he kept it up for hours, evading questions by trying to
>>>> misunderstand them or not understand the most simple grammar.
>>>>
>>
>>> Gates is many things, but they don't include being a moron.
>>
>> They do in that video.
> Not really. Weaselly as hell and noncooperative while appearing to be
> dumber than a bag of hammers yeah, but that (I believe) is an act.
The moronism is in the "this act will get me out of it" idea.
:)
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bobbie
You have to wonder just how much he picked up from his father. Legal
skills that is. Did his father, a very influential Seattle lawyer, teach
Billy the fine art of legal manoeuvring?
--
Bobbie the Triple Killer
http://members.shaw.ca/bobbie4/index.htm
email Bobbie @ bobbie4R...@shaw.ca
remember to 'remove this'
Bobbie recently switched to Ubuntu 6.
Why? Cause he can, that's why.
Roy Schestowitz
Coming from a lawyer/diplomat family, I don't think he understands any of
these terms (neither peace nor justice). *smile*
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: stop maintenance; get more actual work done
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
4:20am up 20 days 4:38, 6 users, load average: 1.36, 0.62, 0.38
Mark Kent
This says more about the ethos and ethics of Microsoft than any number
of marketing campaigns, but for those of us who've spent a long time
here, it should be no surprise at all, as it aligns so thoroughly with
the behaviour we witness on a day to day basis. There are so many
examples of this ethically-free behaviour, one major example being the
astroturfing which goes on in this very newsgroup. I still have a
deeper concern with how the whole Microsoft breakup was abandoned by the
present US government - again, it seems surprising to me that a
government can so easily interfere with a judiciary which is claimed to
have some degree of independence - clearly, it hasn't got very much
independence.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
Roy Schestowitz
> nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu <nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu> espoused:
>> You know, I take it for granted that people lie for all kinds of
>> reasons, love, money, but especially for money. You expect it,
>> especially when someone is trying to sell you something. But at the
>> same time you also expect there to be limits to the lying, that beyond
>> a certain point it just gets too bald-faced for anyone to have the
>> gall to keep putting up the lie. Then you see something like this...
>>
>
> This says more about the ethos and ethics of Microsoft than any number
> of marketing campaigns, but for those of us who've spent a long time
> here, it should be no surprise at all, as it aligns so thoroughly with
> the behaviour we witness on a day to day basis. There are so many
> examples of this ethically-free behaviour, one major example being the
> astroturfing which goes on in this very newsgroup. I still have a
> deeper concern with how the whole Microsoft breakup was abandoned by the
> present US government - again, it seems surprising to me that a
> government can so easily interfere with a judiciary which is claimed to
> have some degree of independence - clearly, it hasn't got very much
> independence.
Only in Soviet a government runs the industry. (yes, it's the Russian
reversal joke)
--
~~ Happy Valentine's Day
Roy S. Schestowitz | Run a Linux server, then learn how to knit
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.71 1.01 0.98 1/135 23895
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
Rafael
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Wednesday 14 February 2007 09:00 \__
>> nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu <nes...@wigner.berkeley.edu> espoused:
>>
>>> You know, I take it for granted that people lie for all kinds of
>>> reasons, love, money, but especially for money. You expect it,
>>> especially when someone is trying to sell you something. But at the
>>> same time you also expect there to be limits to the lying, that beyond
>>> a certain point it just gets too bald-faced for anyone to have the
>>> gall to keep putting up the lie. Then you see something like this...
>>
>> This says more about the ethos and ethics of Microsoft than any number
>> of marketing campaigns, but for those of us who've spent a long time
>> here, it should be no surprise at all, as it aligns so thoroughly with
>> the behaviour we witness on a day to day basis. There are so many
>> examples of this ethically-free behaviour, one major example being the
>> astroturfing which goes on in this very newsgroup. I still have a
>> deeper concern with how the whole Microsoft breakup was abandoned by the
>> present US government - again, it seems surprising to me that a
>> government can so easily interfere with a judiciary which is claimed to
>> have some degree of independence - clearly, it hasn't got very much
>> independence.
>
> Only in Soviet a government runs the industry. (yes, it's the Russian
> reversal joke)
Years ago, the US system of justice was considered a model for other
governments to mimic. Unfortunately over time, it seem US justice
system have forgotten its primary purpose of providing justice to the
populace. Instead, it seems now to have catered to special interest
groups, corporations and ill consideration for the victimised.
Ironically, I find it more odd that "non-Christian" ethos nations seem
to be more Christian-like in their behaviour of true justice than
"Christian" nations like US. This is considering the crime statistics
and relative freedom people have, likelihood of not getting mugged,
robbed, raped, murdered, walking the streets.
In a similar vein, it is interesting to note that one of the countries
slowest to adopt FOSS and Linux seems to be US. US based companies like
RedHat, IBM, Oracle, HP are leads in the Linux/FOSS movement. Smaller
segments of government, education and industry are employing FOSS and
Linux, but not to the degree outside US.
If trend continues, 10 years from now, US may not be a predominant
deciding factor in world politics and technology.