EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

10.04.20

EPO Management Threatens People Who Come Back to Work (Updated)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:00 pm by Guest Editorial Team

Sign for parking

Summary: The EPO’s working environment has become even more toxic than before; leaked communications show malicious and threatening tone, which can only contribute to stress

AFTER wasting lots of money on new and failing buildings (which nobody really asked for), ejecting judges (to occupy some rented space in Haar, possibly in direct violation of the EPC) and planning to waste almost a billion euros on some more buildings (totally unnecessary) justice is clearly on the rocks.

“SUEPO (the EPO’s staff union) has already pointed out that Benoît Battistelli’s approval rating among staff was better than that of Campinos (at equivalent periods of time in the term), based on a new staff survey.”But it gets yet worse. The coronavirus crisis is being exploited by people looking to undermine (and outsource to foreign companies) the entire legal process while milking this institution for its money.

“Harassed staff at the EPO” was reported to us a day after we had called for information. “The harassment of EPO staff continues even during the Covid-19 pandemic and teleworking times,” a source has told Techrights. “Here is an insulting email from an EPO manager to staff.”

Click the image for a full-sized version of it (visually and digitally processed for better anonymity).

The EPO's threatening language

“This is the kind of reactions we get,” said our source, “when we ask questions and want to be listened: anger, insults and contempt. This is the kind of managers that Mr Campinos is promoting.”

SUEPO (the EPO’s staff union) has already pointed out that Benoît Battistelli‘s approval rating among staff was better than that of Campinos (at equivalent periods of time in the term), based on a new staff survey. In the same publication SUEPO raised concerns about the collapse of patent quality (or legal validity of European Patents being issued), the illegality of the way hearings are being conducted, and various other key aspects, including impending layoffs (in a later publication).

Days ago Managing IP published “Generics on virtual EPO oppositions: ‘force patentees to join’”. It says “Fresenius Kabi, Gedeon Richter, Insud and three others suggest patentees are refusing to attend virtual oppositions to unfairly stall critical invalidations,” which means the COVID-19 crisis now causes deaths of generics (hence deaths of loads of people, who depend on generics for Access to Medicines). And because the EPO breaks the law, as usual, there’s a legitimate excuse to perpetuate the existence of patents which should never have been granted in the first place (possibly from somebody’s home while home-schooling, maybe at 5AM, battling to meet unreachable targets and quotas).

A toy car

An EPO without an office does not need cars or parking spaces… or even staff on the face of it. It’s all being dismantled in a great hurry, leaving just a virtual institution where the “O” in EPO means nothing anymore. It’s a rubber-stamping operation for European Patents (EPs). Just call it EP, not EPO.

Update: Articles above are open access (OA) for the most part. Generics stuff, however, is behind a paywall. There’s this section entitled “Generics weigh in on virtual EPO oppositions” in the same site and it says more:

The coronavirus has upended patent challenge proceedings everywhere, forcing courts and intellectual property offices to prioritise physical safety and rely heavily on video conferencing. The EPO is no exception, but generics drug companies say the office’s new rules are being abused.

The EPO Opposition Division, unlike the office’s Boards of Appeal (BoA), has stopped in-person proceedings until December 31, but allowed oral arguments to be made by video conference. Both parties have to consent to a video conference, however, and numerous patentees have refused.

Six generic drugs companies, including Insud Pharma, Accord, Fresenius Kabi, Zentiva and Gedeon Richter, tell Managing IP that this system has caused them problems because patentees often choose to delay, and often seemingly in an effort to stall the invalidation of their patents.

Several argue that patentees should be forced to attend to avoid delaying the release of cheaper drugs.

If They Call You a “User” (or “Customer”), They Might be Drug Dealers and Lords of Narcotics (Digital or Otherwise)

Posted in Bill Gates, Microsoft, Office Suites, Open XML, OpenDocument at 6:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.”

Bill Gates

A media overload

Summary: Preying on so-called ‘users’ is the nature of proprietary software, which puts digital shackles on people and then starts manipulating them

THE simple fact is that many of today’s interfaces are designed to be “addictive”, especially on the Web where the ‘currency’ is screen time (opportunity to spy on people and foist ads onto them). This is certainly true about Facebook (with admissions from the company) and Twitter is hardly better with its infinite scrolling, suggestive (yet cryptic) “trending” clickbait and so on.

“…if many ‘addicts’ get together, they can fork the implementation to better suit their needs and distribute the fork free of charge.”It wasn’t too long ago that Richard Stallman asked geeks to submit to him examples of interfaces that had been designed to be addictive.

In the case of ‘traditional’ and native software, formats that are secret and proprietary software with lock-in mechanisms have long been used to force people to ‘upgrade’ (pay for the same thing over and over again). The network effect, or peer pressure by format incompatibility, is an issue long documented (for decades; it helped rationalise the vendor-neutral OpenDocument Format).

Man all drunkIt’s time to communicate these issues using the jargon or slang of narcotics. The term “users” is heavily used in that context because of the helplessness of the addicts, who are reduced to mere zombies that consume and cannot think clearly.

Free software addresses some but not all of these issues; there’s no guarantee that addiction elements will be entirely obliterated just by virtue of some piece of software being free (to study, modify, share as well as run without restrictions). One can easily get addicted to Free (as in freedom) computer games. But the leverage the developer gains over individual people or large groups of people (even entire nations) is clearly limited; if many ‘addicts’ get together, they can fork the implementation to better suit their needs and distribute the fork free of charge. That’s very much unlike what a certain Bill Gates (nowadays a vaccine profiteer) sought to achieve with Microsoft products. It’s all about power, unjust power and coercion. It’s not about technical excellence; technology here is merely the means by which to gain power (political, not technical) over a lot of people while amassing endless wealth, controlling the lives of so many without democratic oversight.

Bill Gates Deposition Transcripts

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Microsoft at 5:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Image from Bill Gates deposition part 5 — to be published tomorrow

Bill Gates praysSummary: A text version of some of the exchanges with Bill Gates, who misled and lied about what he had done (whilst being confronted with evidence debunking his lies, causing him to bob his head like a pigeon)

HERE is a partial and public transcript of the conversations with a very evasive Bill Gates, who refuses to answer simple questions and habitually lies. The relevance was explained before we released the first part, second part, third part, and part four of the deposition tapes. The fourth part was published this morning.

    VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION EXCERPTS OF BILL GATES
    
13   BY MR. HOUCK:
14   QUESTION: IN OR ABOUT JUNE 1995,
15 MR. GATES, DID YOU BECOME INVOLVED IN THE
16 PLANNING FOR SOME MEETINGS WITH NETSCAPE?
17   ANSWER: NO.
18   QUESTION: THE E-MAIL I WANT TO ASK YOU
19 ABOUT FIRST, MR. GATES, IS DATED JUNE 1ST, 1995,
20 AND THE VERY TOP PORTION INDICATES THAT THE
21 BOTTOM PORTION IS BEING SENT TO YOU FOR YOUR
22 INFORMATION BY PAUL MARITZ, AND THE BOTTOM
23 PORTION IS AN E-MAIL FROM THOMAS REARDON, DATED
24 JUNE 1, 1995, ON THE SUBJECT OF WORKING WITH
25 NETSCAPE.



5 1 DO YOU RECALL RECEIVING THIS MEMORANDUM OR 2 E-MAIL? 3 ANSWER: E-MAIL, NO. 4 QUESTION: ALL RIGHT. I APOLOGIZE FOR USING 5 MY OLD-FASHIONED TERMINOLOGY. 6 YOU DON'T RECALL RECEIVING THIS E-MAIL 7 PARTICULARLY? 8 ANSWER: NO. 9 QUESTION: THE E-MAIL STATES, `DAN AND BARB 10 AND I MET LATE YESTERDAY TO REVIEW OUR RECENT 11 DISCUSSIONS WITH NETSCAPE AND FORM OUR NEXT FEW 12 ACTION ITEMS. DAN IS MEETING WITH JIM BARKSDALE, 13 THEIR CEO, SHORTLY.' 14 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE REFERENCE TO DAN TO BE 15 A REFERENCE TO DAN ROSEN? 16 ANSWER: PROBABLY. 17 QUESTION: IS THE REFERENCE TO BARBARA A 18 REFERENCE TO BARBARA FOX? 19 ANSWER: I MEAN, YOU COULD ASK THOMAS. 20 PROBABLY. 21 QUESTION: DO YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING, 22 SIR? 23 ANSWER: BASED ON--I HAVE NEVER SPOKEN WITH 24 THOMAS ABOUT THIS. I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THE 25 E-MAIL.
6 1 QUESTION: DO YOU RECALL SPEAKING TO ANYONE 2 ABOUT THE MEETING REFERRED TO HERE BETWEEN DAN 3 ROSEN AND JIM BARKSDALE? 4 ANSWER: NO. 5 QUESTION: THE E-MAIL GOES ON TO LIST 6 WORKING GOALS, WHICH ARE, ONE, LAUNCH STT, OUR 7 ELECTRONIC PAYMENT PROTOCOL. GET STT PRESENCE ON 8 THE INTERNET. TWO, MOVE NETSCAPE OUT OF THE 9 WIN32 INTERNET CLIENT AREA. THREE, AVOID COLD OR 10 HOT WAR WITH NETSCAPE. KEEP THEM FROM SABOTAGING 11 OUR PLATFORM EVOLUTION. 12 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE REFERENCE TO WIN32 13 INTERNET CLIENT TO BE A REFERENCE TO WINDOWS 95? 14 ANSWER: NO. 15 QUESTION: WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT TO BE A 16 REFERENCE TO? 17 ANSWER: WIN32. 18 QUESTION: AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THAT 19 IS. 20 ANSWER: 32-BIT WINDOWS. 21 QUESTION: IS WINDOWS 95 A 32-BIT WINDOWS 22 PRODUCT? 23 ANSWER: IT'S ONE OF THEM. 24 QUESTION: WERE THERE ANY OTHER 32-BIT 25 PRODUCTS IN DEVELOPMENT IN JUNE OF 1995?
7 1 ANSWER: CERTAINLY. 2 QUESTION: WHICH ONES? 3 ANSWER: WINDOWS NT. 4 QUESTION: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER MR. REARDON 5 WAS REFERRING TO WINDOWS NT AND WINDOWS 30 AND 6 WINDOWS 95, OR ONE OR THE OTHER? 7 ANSWER: WIN32'S A TERM THAT REFERS TO ALL 8 THE 32-BIT PLATFORMS. 9 QUESTION: AND AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR 10 TESTIMONY THAT THE 32-BIT PLATFORMS UNDER 11 DEVELOPMENT IN JUNE OF 1995 WERE WINDOWS NT AND 12 WINDOWS 95; IS THAT CORRECT? 13 ANSWER: NO. WINDOWS NT WAS SHIPPING, AND 14 THERE WAS A NEW VERSION THAT WAS UNDER 15 DEVELOPMENT. 16 QUESTION: AND WINDOWS 95 WAS IN DEVELOPMENT 17 AT THIS TIME? 18 ANSWER: CERTAINLY." 19 (PAUSE.) 20 "QUESTION: IN THE PORTION OF THE E-MAIL 21 DENOMINATED NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS "MOVE NETSCAPE 22 OUT OF WIN32/WIN95, AVOID BATTLING THEM IN THE 23 NEXT YEAR," THERE APPEARS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT 24 IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, QUOTE, THEY APPEARED TO 25 BE MOVING FAST TO ESTABLISH THEMSELVES IN THE
8 1 VALUE-ADD APP BUSINESS BY LEVERAGING NETSCAPE 2 ITSELF AS A PLATFORM. 3 DO YOU RECALL WHETHER YOU AGREED THAT THAT'S 4 WHAT NETSCAPE WAS DOING BACK IN JUNE '95? 5 ANSWER: AT THIS TIME I HAD NO SENSE OF WHAT 6 NETSCAPE WAS DOING." 7 (PAUSE.) 8 "QUESTION: DO YOU RECALL, AS YOU SIT HERE 9 TODAY, APART FROM JUST READING THESE E-MAILS, 10 ANYTHING THAT WAS REPORTED BACK TO YOU BY ANY OF 11 THE PARTICIPANTS FROM MICROSOFT AT THIS JUNE 21ST 12 MEETING? 13 ANSWER: WELL, I THINK SOMEWHERE ABOUT THIS 14 TIME SOMEBODY SAID TO ME THAT--ASKED IF IT MADE 15 SENSE FOR US TO CONSIDER INVESTING IN NETSCAPE, 16 AND I SAID THAT THAT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. I 17 DIDN'T SEE THAT AS SOMETHING THAT MADE SENSE. 18 QUESTION: DO YOU RECALL WHO SAID THAT TO 19 YOU? 20 ANSWER: IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROBABLY 21 SUGGESTED IN A PIECE OF E-MAIL FROM DAN, I THINK. 22 QUESTION: DO YOU RECALL WHEN YOU GOT THAT 23 SUGGESTION, WHETHER IT WAS BEFORE OR AFTER THE 24 MEETING? 25 ANSWER: OH, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AFTER THE
9 1 MEETING. 2 QUESTION: DO YOU RECALL ANYTHING ELSE THAT 3 ANYONE TOLD YOU BACK IN JUNE '95 ABOUT THE 4 MEETING? 5 ANSWER: NO." 6 (PAUSE.) 7 "BY MR. BOIES: 8 QUESTION: YOU ARE AWARE THAT IT HAS BEEN 9 ASSERTED THAT AT THAT MEETING THERE WAS AN 10 ATTEMPT TO ALLOCATE MARKETS BETWEEN NETSCAPE AND 11 MICROSOFT; CORRECT, SIR? 12 ANSWER: MY ONLY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT IS THAT 13 THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL 14 VERY RECENTLY THAT SAID SOMETHING ALONG THOSE 15 LINES. OTHERWISE, NO. 16 QUESTION: IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE 17 FIRST TIME THAT YOU WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS AN 18 ASSERTION THAT THERE HAD BEEN A MARKETABLE 19 ALLOCATION MEETING OR AN ATTEMPT TO ALLOCATE 20 MARKETS AT A MEETING BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF 21 MICROSOFT AND NETSCAPE WAS A RECENT WALL STREET 22 JOURNAL ARTICLE? 23 ANSWER: I'M NOT SURE HOW TO CHARACTERIZE 24 IT. THE FIRST THING--THE FIRST I HEARD ANYTHING 25 ABOUT THAT MEETING AND SOMEBODY TRYING TO
10 1 CHARACTERIZE IT IN SOME NEGATIVE WAY WAS AN 2 ANDREESSEN QUOTE THAT WAS IN THE WALL STREET 3 JOURNAL VERY RECENTLY, AND IT SURPRISED ME. 4 QUESTION: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY INSTANCES IN 5 WHICH REPRESENTATIVES OF MICROSOFT HAD MET WITH 6 COMPETITORS IN AN ATTEMPT TO ALLOCATE MARKETS? 7 MR. HEINER: OBJECTION. 8 THE WITNESS: I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY SUCH 9 THING. I KNOW IT'S VERY MUCH AGAINST THE WAY WE 10 OPERATE. 11 BY MR. BOIES: 12 QUESTION: IT WOULD BE AGAINST COMPANY 13 POLICY TO DO THAT? 14 ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT." 15 (PAUSE.) 16 "QUESTION: LET ME ASK YOU, DID YOU--WHEN 17 YOU SAW THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT 18 TALKED ABOUT A MAY MEETING IN TERMS OF ALLEGEDLY 19 MARKET DIVIDING CONDUCT, DID YOU TRY TO FIND OUT 20 WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN A MAY MEETING BETWEEN 21 REPRESENTATIVES OF MICROSOFT AND REPRESENTATIVES 22 OF NETSCAPE? 23 ANSWER: WELL, AGAIN, I WOULDN'T 24 CHARACTERIZE THE ARTICLE IN THAT WAY. WHEN I 25 READ THE ARTICLE, WHAT IT SAID INTERESTED ME
11 1 ENOUGH AND CONCERNED ME ENOUGH I DID SEEK TO FIND 2 OUT IF THERE WAS A MAY MEETING, BUT I DON'T THINK 3 THE ARTICLE IS WHAT YOU'RE SUGGEST--SAID WHAT 4 YOU'RE SUGGESTING. I MEAN, WE SHOULD GET A COPY 5 OF THE ARTICLE. I DON'T REMEMBER IT THAT WAY. I 6 REMEMBER ANDREESSEN TALKING ABOUT HOW HE HAD BEEN 7 IN FEAR THAT DON CORLEONE HAD COME TO SEE HIM. 8 AND, YOU KNOW, ONCE I REALIZED THAT THERE 9 WAS NO MEETING IN MAY AND THAT IT WASN'T--YOU 10 KNOW, THAT HE, AFTER THE MEETING, SAID HE ENJOYED 11 THE MEETING AND THAT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, JUST A 12 GROUP OF OUR GUYS DOWN THERE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT 13 IF THERE WAS ANYWAY AREAS OF COOPERATION, IT 14 SEEMED--THE WHOLE THING SEEMED VERY STRANGE TO 15 ME. 16 QUESTION: DID YOU TALK TO PEOPLE TO FIND 17 OUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MAY MEETING? 18 ANSWER: YES. 19 QUESTION: WHO DID YOU TALK TO? 20 ANSWER: I CONSULTED WITH MY LAWYERS. 21 QUESTION: OTHER THAN CONSULTING WITH YOUR 22 LAWYERS, DID YOU TRY TO FIND OUT WHETHER THERE 23 WAS A MAY MEETING? 24 ANSWER: WELL, MY LAWYERS, THEN, TALKED TO 25 ALL THE PEOPLE THAT MIGHT HAVE MET WITH NETSCAPE,
12 1 AND I MADE SURE THEY DID THAT PRETTY BROADLY. 2 QUESTION: YOU WERE INFORMED THAT THERE WAS 3 NO MAY MEETING; IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY? 4 ANSWER: THAT'S THE UNDERSTANDING I WAS 5 GIVEN, YES, AND THEN I WAS GIVEN SOME OTHER 6 INFORMATION THAT I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED. 7 QUESTION: BUT ALL OF THAT INFORMATION CAME 8 FROM YOUR LAWYERS AND NOT FROM NONLAWYER 9 EMPLOYEES OF MICROSOFT; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE 10 SAYING? 11 ANSWER: IT CAME TO ME THROUGH MY LAWYERS. 12 QUESTION: DID YOU EVER HAVE A CONVERSATION 13 WITH ANYONE IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, OTHER THAN 14 YOUR LAWYERS, CONCERNING WHETHER THERE WERE 15 MEETINGS IN MAY OR JUNE OF 1995 WITH NETSCAPE, 16 AND IF SO, WHAT HAPPENED AT THOSE MEETINGS? 17 ANSWER: WELL, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A POINT 18 AFTER I GOT ALL THE DATA FROM THE LAWYERS WHERE I 19 SAID TO SOME OF THE PR PEOPLE WHAT AN OUTRAGEOUS 20 SLANDER THAT ARTICLE HAD BEEN AND HOW UNFAIR I 21 FELT IT WAS. AND SO, I MAY HAVE MENTIONED THAT 22 TO THEM. 23 QUESTION: DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS, 24 IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, WITH ANY PERSON WHO WAS 25 DEALING WITH NETSCAPE IN 1995 ABOUT WHETHER THERE
13 1 WERE MAY OR JUNE MEETINGS, AND IF SO, WHAT 2 HAPPENED AT THOSE MEETINGS? 3 ANSWER: NO. I RELIED ON THE LAWYERS TO GO 4 AND MEET WITH THOSE PEOPLE AND GATHER THE FACTS 5 AND EDUCATE ME ABOUT WAS THERE A MAY MEETING AND 6 WHAT WAS THE AGENDA, WHAT WAS ANDREESSEN'S STATE 7 OF MIND AFTER THE MEETING, WHAT DID THE NOTES 8 LOOK LIKE. BUT THAT'S ALL VERY RECENT. THAT IS 9 AFTER THE JOURNAL ARTICLE. 10 QUESTION: NOW, HAVE YOU EVER READ THE 11 COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE? 12 ANSWER: NO. 13 QUESTION: HAVE YOU EVER RECEIVED A SUMMARY 14 OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE? 15 ANSWER: I WOULDN'T SAY I'VE RECEIVED A 16 SUMMARY, NO. I HAVE TALKED TO MY LAWYERS ABOUT 17 THE CASE, BUT NOT REALLY THE COMPLAINT. 18 QUESTION: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IN THE 19 COMPLAINT THERE IS AN ASSERTION--I'M NOT TALKING 20 ABOUT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE. I'M 21 TALKING ABOUT THE COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED LAST 22 MAY. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IN THAT COMPLAINT THERE 23 ARE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING A 1995 MEETING BETWEEN 24 NETSCAPE AND MICROSOFT REPRESENTATIVES RELATING 25 TO ALLEGED MARKET DIVISION DISCUSSIONS?
14 1 ANSWER: I HAVEN'T READ THE COMPLAINT, SO I 2 DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. BUT I THINK SOMEBODY SAID 3 THAT THAT IS IN THERE. 4 QUESTION: DID YOU FIND THAT OUT BEFORE OR 5 AFTER THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE? 6 ANSWER: THE FIRST TIME I KNEW ABOUT THESE 7 ALLEGATIONS WAS THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE, 8 SO-- 9 QUESTION: THAT IS, THAT ARTICLE PRECEDED 10 ANY KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAD OR DIDN'T HAVE RELATED 11 TO THE COMPLAINT? 12 ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT." 13 (PAUSE.) 14 "QUESTION: HAVE YOU EVER HAD DISCUSSIONS 15 WITHIN MICROSOFT ABOUT THE DESIRABILITY OF TRYING 16 TO UNDERMINE SUN BECAUSE OF WHAT SUN WAS DOING IN 17 JAVA? 18 ANSWER: I SAID TO YOU, PART OF OUR ACTIVITY 19 IS TO GO OUT AND WORK WITH CUSTOMERS TO SEE WHAT 20 IT TAKES TO HAVE THEM CHOOSE TO LICENSE OUR 21 PRODUCTS, AND THAT'S IN COMPETITION WITH MANY 22 OTHER COMPANIES, INCLUDING SUN." 23 (PAUSE.) 24 "QUESTION: I'M NOT NOW TALKING ABOUT WHAT 25 YOU DO IN COMPETITION WITH OTHER PRODUCTS OR
15 1 OTHER COMPANIES. WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS 2 WHETHER OR NOT YOU'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH PEOPLE 3 WITHIN MICROSOFT IN WHICH YOU TALKED ABOUT THE 4 NEED TO UNDERMINE SUN--USING THOSE WORDS, IF THAT 5 WILL HELP YOU--WITHIN MICROSOFT. 6 ANSWER: I DON'T REMEMBER USING THOSE WORDS. 7 QUESTION: YOU DON'T? 8 ANSWER: NO. 9 QUESTION: DO YOU THINK YOU DID USE THOSE 10 WORDS, OR YOU JUST DON'T KNOW, ONE WAY OR THE 11 OTHER? 12 ANSWER: I DON'T KNOW. 13 QUESTION: WOULD IT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE 14 WAY YOU FELT ABOUT JAVA, FOR YOU TO HAVE TOLD 15 PEOPLE THAT YOU WANTED TO UNDERMINE SUN? 16 ANSWER: AS I'VE SAID, ANYTHING ABOUT JAVA, 17 YOU'VE GOT TO SHOW ME A CONTEXT BEFORE I CAN 18 ANSWER, BECAUSE JUST THE TERM "JAVA" ITSELF CAN 19 MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS." 20 (PAUSE.) 21 "QUESTION: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH 22 APPLE IN WHICH YOU WERE TRYING TO GET APPLE TO 23 AGREE TO HELP YOU UNDERMINE SUN? 24 ANSWER: THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT 25 WHAT RUNTIME API'S APPLE WOULD SUPPORT, WHETHER
16 1 THEY WOULD SUPPORT SOME OF OURS OR SOME OF SUN'S. 2 I DON'T THINK I WAS INVOLVED IN ANY DISCUSSIONS, 3 MYSELF, WITH APPLE ABOUT THAT. 4 QUESTION: WELL, LET ME SHOW YOU A DOCUMENT 5 AND TRY TO PROBE WHAT YOU MEAN BY BEING INVOLVED. 6 LET ME GIVE YOU A COPY OF A DOCUMENT THAT HAS 7 BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 265. 8 A PORTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS AN E-MAIL 9 MESSAGE FROM YOU TO PAUL MARITZ AND OTHERS, AND 10 THE PORTION THAT I'M PARTICULARLY INTERESTED 11 IN--AND YOU CAN READ AS MUCH OF THE THREE-LINE 12 E-MAIL AS YOU WISH--IS THE LAST SENTENCE, WHICH 13 READS, QUOTE, DO WE HAVE A CLEAR PLAN ON WHAT WE 14 WANT APPLE TO DO TO UNDERMINE SUN, CLOSED QUOTES? 15 DID YOU SEND THIS E-MAIL, MR. GATES, ON OR 16 ABOUT AUGUST 8TH, 1997? 17 ANSWER: I DON'T REMEMBER SENDING IT. 18 QUESTION: DO YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT THAT YOU 19 SENT IT? 20 ANSWER: NO. IT APPEARS TO BE E-MAIL I 21 SENT. 22 QUESTION: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A 23 DOCUMENT PRODUCED FROM MICROSOFT'S FILES, DO YOU 24 NOT, SIR? 25 ANSWER: NO.
17 1 QUESTION: YOU DON'T? 2 ANSWER: WELL, HOW WOULD I KNOW THAT? 3 QUESTION: WELL, DO YOU SEE THE DOCUMENT 4 PRODUCTION NUMBERS DOWN AT THE BOTTOM? 5 ANSWER: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THOSE NUMBERS 6 ARE." 7 "QUESTION: LET ME GO BACK TO THE E-MAIL, 8 MR. GATES. 9 WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU ASKED MR. MARITZ 10 WHETHER OR NOT, QUOTE, WE HAVE A CLEAR PLAN ON 11 WHAT WE WANT APPLE TO DO TO UNDERMINE SUN, CLOSED 12 QUOTE? 13 ANSWER: I DON'T REMEMBER. 14 QUESTION: DID YOU PERSONALLY PARTICIPATE IN
19 1 ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH APPLE IN 1997 AND 1998? 2 ANSWER: OF ANY KIND? 3 QUESTION: LET ME BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC. 4 DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN ANY CONVERSATIONS 5 WITH APPLE IN 1997 OR 1998, CONCERNING WHAT APPLE 6 WOULD OR WOULD NOT DO THAT WOULD AFFECT MICROSOFT 7 COMPETITIVELY? 8 ANSWER: WELL, THERE WERE SOME CONVERSATIONS 9 WITH STEVE JOBS ABOUT MICROSOFT OFFICE AND 10 SOME--AND A RELATIONSHIP WE FORMED AROUND THAT 11 AND SOME OTHER ISSUES. 12 QUESTION: AND DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THOSE 13 CONVERSATIONS? 14 ANSWER: I TALKED TO STEVE JOBS ON THE 15 PHONE, I THINK, TWICE. 16 QUESTION: AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF YOUR 17 CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. JOBS? 18 ANSWER: WELL, STEVE HAD--STEVE CALLED ME UP 19 AND SAID THAT HE HAD BECOME THE CEO OF APPLE, 20 SORT OF, AND THAT GIL AMELIO WASN'T THE CEO OF 21 APPLE. AND HE RAISED THE QUESTION OF WAS THERE 22 SOME BENEFICIAL AGREEMENT THAT WE COULD ENTER 23 INTO DIFFERENT THAN WE'D BEEN DISCUSSING WITH 24 GIL. AND IT WASN'T A VERY LONG CALL, BUT THE 25 CONCLUSION WAS THAT GREG MAFFEI WOULD GO SEE
20 1 STEVE." 2 (PAUSE.) 3 "QUESTION: AND WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING 4 THAT MICROSOFT OFFICE FOR MACINTOSH WAS BELIEVED 5 BY APPLE TO BE VERY IMPORTANT TO THEM? 6 ANSWER: I REALLY HAVE A HARD TIME 7 TESTIFYING ABOUT THE BELIEF OF A CORPORATION. I 8 REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. 9 QUESTION: WELL, SIR, IN MAKING THE 10 DECISIONS AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD ASK OF APPLE, DID 11 YOU BELIEVE THAT WHAT YOU WERE OFFERING APPLE 12 WITH RESPECT TO MICROSOFT OFFICE FOR MACINTOSH 13 WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO APPLE SO THAT THEY OUGHT 14 TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING FOR IT? 15 ANSWER: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING 16 ABOUT WHEN YOU SAY "ASK." 17 QUESTION: WELL, LET ME SHOW YOU A DOCUMENT 18 THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN MARKED AS GOVERNMENT 19 EXHIBIT 268. THIS IS A DOCUMENT BEARING 20 MICROSOFT DOCUMENT PRODUCTION STAMPS MS 98 21 0110952 THROUGH 53. 22 THE FIRST PART OF THIS PURPORTS TO BE A COPY 23 OF AN E-MAIL FROM DAN--DON BRADFORD TO BEN 24 WALDMAN, WITH A COPY TO YOU, MR. MARITZ AND 25 OTHERS, ON THE SUBJECT OF, QUOTE, JAVA ON
21 1 MACINTOSH/IE CONTROL. 2 DID YOU RECEIVE A COPY OF THIS E-MAIL ON OR 3 ABOUT FEBRUARY 13TH, 1998? 4 ANSWER: I DON'T KNOW." 5 "QUESTION: DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO DOUBT 6 THAT YOU RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS E-MAIL? 7 ANSWER: NO. 8 QUESTION: THE FIRST PARAGRAPH READS, QUOTE, 9 APPLE WANTS TO KEEP BOTH NETSCAPE AND MICROSOFT 10 DEVELOPING BROWSERS FOR MAC--BELIEVING IF ONE 11 DROPS OUT, THE OTHER WILL LOSE INTEREST (AND ALSO 12 NOT REALLY WANTING TO PICK UP THE DEVELOPMENT 13 BURDEN). GETTING APPLE TO DO ANYTHING THAT 14 SIGNIFICANTLY MATERIALLY DISADVANTAGES NETSCAPE 15 WILL BE TOUGH. DO YOU AGREE THAT APPLE SHOULD BE 16 MEETING--IT READS, DO AGREE THAT APPLE SHOULD BE 17 MEETING THE SPIRIT OF OUR CROSS-LICENSE AGREEMENT 18 AND THAT MACOFFICE IS THE PERFECT CLUB TO USE ON 19 THEM. 20 DO YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT 21 MR. BRADFORD MEANS WHEN HE REFERS TO MACOFFICE 22 AS, QUOTE, THE PERFECT CLUB TO USE ON APPLE,
22 1 CLOSED QUOTE? 2 ANSWER: NO. 3 QUESTION: THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THAT 4 PARAGRAPH, THE ONE THAT READS `GETTING APPLE TO 5 DO ANYTHING THAT SIGNIFICANTLY MATERIALLY 6 DISADVANTAGES NETSCAPE WILL BE TOUGH,' WAS IT 7 YOUR UNDERSTANDING IN FEBRUARY OF 1998 THAT 8 MICROSOFT WAS TRYING TO GET APPLE TO DO SOMETHING 9 TO DISADVANTAGE NETSCAPE? 10 ANSWER: NO. 11 QUESTION: DO YOU KNOW WHY MR. BRADFORD 12 WOULD HAVE WRITTEN THIS IN FEBRUARY OF 1998 AND 13 SENT A COPY TO YOU? 14 ANSWER: I'M NOT SURE. 15 QUESTION: DID YOU EVER SAY TO MR. BRADFORD, 16 IN WORDS OR IN SUBSTANCE, IN FEBRUARY OF 1988 OR 17 THEREAFTER, `MR. BRADFORD, YOU GOT IT WRONG. WE 18 ARE NOT OUT TO SIGNIFICANTLY OR MATERIALLY 19 DISADVANTAGE NETSCAPE THROUGH APPLE? 20 ANSWER: NO. 21 QUESTION: DID YOU EVER TELL MR. BRADFORD OR 22 ANYONE ELSE IN FEBRUARY 1998 OR THEREAFTER THAT 23 THEY SHOULD NOT BE TRYING TO GET APPLE TO DO 24 THINGS THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY OR MATERIALLY 25 DISADVANTAGE NETSCAPE?
23 1 ANSWER: NO. 2 QUESTION: WHAT WAS MR. BRADFORD'S POSITION 3 IN FEBRUARY OF 1998? 4 ANSWER: I THINK HE HAD A SMALL GROUP IN 5 CALIFORNIA THAT WORKED--I'M NOT SURE WHO HE 6 WORKED FOR. HE PROBABLY WORKED FOR SOMEBODY WHO 7 WORKED FOR SILVERBERG--NO. NO, I'M NOT SURE WHO 8 HE WORKED FOR. 9 QUESTION: LET'S BEGIN WITH WHAT COMPANY HE 10 WORKED FOR. HE CLEARLY WORKED FOR MICROSOFT; 11 CORRECT, SIR? 12 ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT. 13 QUESTION: AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT HIS TITLE 14 WAS? 15 ANSWER: NO. 16 QUESTION: DO YOU KNOW WHO MR. WALDMAN IS? 17 ANSWER: YES. 18 QUESTION: WHAT WAS HIS TITLE IN FEBRUARY OF 19 1998? 20 ANSWER: I DON'T KNOW. 21 QUESTION: WHAT WERE HIS RESPONSIBILITIES IN 22 FEBRUARY OF 1998? 23 ANSWER: HE WAS--HE RAN A GROUP THAT WAS 24 DOING MACINTOSH SOFTWARE. NEITHER OF THESE GUYS 25 HAVE A TITLE LIKE `VICE PRESIDENT;' THAT I CAN
24 1 SAY FOR SURE. SO, THEY--YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A 2 TITLE LIKE ENGINEER OR SOFTWARE ENGINEER, 3 SOFTWARE ENGINEER MANAGER, BUT I DON'T KNOW THEIR 4 TITLE. THEY'RE NOT EXECUTIVES. 5 QUESTION: IN ADDITION TO YOU AND 6 MR. MARITZ, COPIES OF THIS GO TO DAVID COLE, DAVE 7 REED, CHARLES FITZGERALD, AND JOHN DEVAAN. 8 DO YOU KNOW WHAT MR. COLE'S POSITION WAS IN 9 1998? 10 ANSWER: YES. 11 QUESTION: WHAT WAS IT? 12 ANSWER: HE WAS THE VP--ACTUALLY, I DON'T 13 KNOW VP OF WHAT, BUT HE WAS A VP WORKING FOR--I 14 DON'T KNOW IF WE REORGANIZED BY THEN. HE WAS IN 15 MARITZ'S ORGANIZATION SOMEWHERE." 16 (PAUSE.) 17 "QUESTION: AND MR. DEVAAN? 18 ANSWER: MR. DEVAAN WAS MANAGING THE OVERALL 19 OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. 20 QUESTION: DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS 21 WITH ANYONE WITHIN MICROSOFT AS TO WHAT POSITION 22 MICROSOFT SHOULD TAKE WITH APPLE IN TERMS OF WHAT 23 MICROSOFT SHOULD ASK APPLE FOR IN RETURN FOR 24 MICROSOFT DEVELOPING MACOFFICE? 25 ANSWER: WHAT TIME FRAME ARE YOU IN?
25 1 QUESTION: 1997 OR 1998. 2 ANSWER: WELL, IT ACTUALLY MAKES A BIG 3 DIFFERENCE. WE REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH APPLE 4 IN 1997, AND THERE IS NO--I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY 5 AGREEMENT OTHER THAN THE 1997 ONE. 6 MR. BOIES: COULD I HAVE THE QUESTION READ 7 BACK. 8 (THE RECORD WAS READ AS FOLLOWS): 9 QUESTION: DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS 10 WITH ANYONE WITHIN MICROSOFT AS TO WHAT POSITION 11 MICROSOFT SHOULD TAKE WITH APPLE IN TERMS OF WHAT 12 MICROSOFT SHOULD ASK APPLE FOR IN RETURN FOR 13 MICROSOFT DEVELOPING MACOFFICE? 14 THE WITNESS: I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE 15 SAYING ABOUT MACOFFICE. WE DEVELOPED MACOFFICE 16 BECAUSE IT'S A PROFITABLE BUSINESS FOR US. 17 BY MR. BOIES: 18 QUESTION: WELL, YOU THREATENED TO CANCEL 19 MACOFFICE, DID YOU NOT, SIR? 20 ANSWER: NO. 21 QUESTION: YOU NEVER THREATENED APPLE THAT 22 YOU WERE GOING TO CANCEL MACOFFICE? IS THAT YOUR 23 TESTIMONY? 24 ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT. 25 QUESTION: DID YOU EVER DISCUSS WITHIN
26 1 MICROSOFT THREATENING APPLE THAT YOU WERE GOING 2 TO CANCEL MACOFFICE? 3 ANSWER: YOU WOULDN'T CANCEL--NO." 4 "QUESTION: NOW, LET ME DIRECT YOUR 5 ATTENTION TO THE SECOND ITEM ON THE FIRST PAGE OF 6 THIS EXHIBIT. AND THIS PURPORTS TO BE AN E-MAIL 7 FROM MR. WALDMAN TO YOU, DATED JUNE 27, 1997; IS 8 THAT CORRECT, SIR? 9 ANSWER: THE SECOND ONE, UMM-HMM. 10 QUESTION: YOU HAVE TO ANSWER AUDIBLY YES OR 11 NO, MR. GATES. 12 ANSWER: YES, THE SECOND ONE. 13 QUESTION: NOW, IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF 14 THIS E-MAIL TO YOU, THE SECOND SENTENCE READS, 15 QUOTE, THE THREAT TO CANCEL MACOFFICE 97 IS 16 CERTAINLY THE STRONGEST BARGAINING POINT WE HAVE, 17 AS DOING SO WILL DO A GREAT DEAL OF HARM TO APPLE 18 IMMEDIATELY,. 19 DO YOU SEE THAT, SIR? 20 ANSWER: UMM-HMM. 21 QUESTION: DO YOU RECALL RECEIVING THIS
30 1 E-MAIL IN JUNE OF 1997? 2 ANSWER: NOT SPECIFICALLY. 3 QUESTION: DO YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT THAT YOU 4 RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN JUNE OF 1997? 5 ANSWER: NO. 6 QUESTION: DO YOU KNOW WHY MR. WALDMAN WROTE 7 YOU IN JUNE OF 1997 THAT THE THREAT TO CANCEL 8 MACOFFICE 97 IS CERTAINLY THE STRONGEST 9 BARGAINING POINT WE HAVE, AS DOING SO WILL HAVE 10 DO A GREAT DEAL OF HARM TO APPLE IMMEDIATELY? 11 ANSWER: WELL, MR. WALDMAN WAS IN CHARGE OF 12 THIS UPDATE, AND THE MACOFFICE PRODUCT HAD BEEN 13 SHIPPING FOR OVER A DECADE BY NOW, AND THERE WAS 14 A FINANCIAL QUESTION OF WHETHER TO DO THIS 15 UPDATE. AND HE FELT IT MADE GOOD BUSINESS 16 SENTENCE TO DO IT. OTHER PEOPLE, IRRESPECTIVE OF 17 THE RELATIONSHIP WITH APPLE, HAD SAID THAT IT 18 DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO DO THE UPDATE. AND SO, 19 THERE WAS SOME MAIL FROM BEN, INCLUDING THIS ONE, 20 WHERE HE WAS SAYING HE THOUGHT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD 21 AND FINISH THE PRODUCT. 22 I'M NOT SURE WHAT HE MEANS ABOUT THE 23 NEGOTIATIONS WITH APPLE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE 24 WERE NEGOTIATING WITH APPLE AT THIS POINT. 25 QUESTION: WAS THIS THE TIME THAT YOU WERE
31 1 NEGOTIATING WITH APPLE TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT 2 YOU COULD GET APPLE TO DO TO UNDERMINE SUN? 3 ANSWER: WELL, THE ONLY E-MAIL--THE ONLY 4 THING YOU'VE SHOWN ME WHERE THAT TERM WAS USED IS 5 AFTER WE REACHED A MACOFFICE AGREEMENT WITH 6 APPLE. 7 QUESTION: YOU'RE REFERRING TO YOUR E-MAIL 8 DATED AUGUST 8, 1997; IS THAT CORRECT? 9 ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT. 10 QUESTION: THAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS 11 EXHIBIT 265; IS THAT CORRECT? 12 ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S AFTER. 13 QUESTION: THAT'S AUGUST 8TH, 1997? 14 ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT. 15 QUESTION: AND IT IS CLEAR FROM YOUR AUGUST 16 8TH, 1997, MEMO THAT YOU ARE STILL ATTEMPTING TO 17 GET APPLE TO DO ADDITIONAL THINGS, IS IT NOT, 18 SIR? 19 ANSWER: NO. 20 QUESTION: WELL, SIR, LET'S READ IT. IT IS 21 ONLY THREE LINES. YOU QUITE, QUOTE, I WANT TO 22 GET AS MUCH MILEAGE AS POSSIBLE OUT OF OUR 23 BROWSER AND JAVA RELATIONSHIP HERE. 24 AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT `HERE,' YOU'RE 25 TALKING ABOUT WITH APPLE, ARE YOU NOT, SIR?
32 1 ANSWER: I'M NOT SURE. 2 QUESTION: WELL, THE SUBJECT OF THIS IS `FW: 3 POST-AGREEMENT;' CORRECT, SIR? 4 ANSWER: YEAH. THAT'S WHAT MAKES ME THINK 5 THIS WAS PROBABLY POST-AGREEMENT. 6 QUESTION: POST-AGREEMENT WITH APPLE; RIGHT? 7 ANSWER: YES. 8 QUESTION: OKAY. SO, THE SUBJECT IS 9 POST-AGREEMENT WITH APPLE, AND THE VERY FIRST 10 SENTENCE SAYS, `I WANT TO GET AS MUCH MILEAGE AS 11 POSSIBLE OUT OF OUR BROWSER AND JAVA RELATIONSHIP 12 HERE.' 13 THE SECOND SENTENCE SAYS, `IN OTHER WORDS, A 14 REAL ADVANTAGE AGAINST SUN AND NETSCAPE.' 15 THE THIRD LINE SAYS, `WHO SHOULD AVI BE 16 WORKING WITH? DO WE HAVE A CLEAR PLAN ON WHAT WE 17 WANT APPLE TO DO TO UNDERMINE SUN?' 18 NOW, DO YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT THAT WHEN YOU 19 TALK ABOUT `I WANT TO GET AS MUCH MILEAGE AS 20 POSSIBLE OUT OF OUR BROWSER AND JAVA RELATIONSHIP 21 HERE,' YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT APPLE? 22 ANSWER: THAT'S WHAT IT APPEARS. 23 QUESTION: OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY 24 RECOLLECTION OF ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE SUBJECT 25 MATTER OF THIS E-MAIL IN OR ABOUT AUGUST OF 1997?
33 1 IF THE QUESTION WAS CONFUSING, I WOULD BE 2 HAPPY TO REPHRASE IT, MR. GATES. 3 ANSWER: GO AHEAD. 4 QUESTION: DID YOU SEND THIS E-MAIL? 5 ANSWER: IT APPEARS I DID. 6 QUESTION: DID YOU DISCUSS THIS E-MAIL WITH 7 ANYONE? 8 ANSWER: I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. 9 QUESTION: LET ME GO BACK TO EXHIBIT 263, 10 WHICH IS THE JUNE 27, 1997, E-MAIL FROM 11 MR. WALDMAN TO YOU. 12 DO YOU RECALL--AND I KNOW YOU'VE SAID YOU 13 DON'T RECALL RECEIVING THIS E-MAIL, BUT DO YOU 14 RECALL ANYONE DESCRIBING THE THREAT TO CANCEL 15 MACOFFICE 97 AS A BARGAINING POINT THAT YOU HAVE 16 IN DEALINGS WITH APPLE, IN OR ABOUT JUNE OF 1997? 17 ANSWER: I REMEMBER GOING TO MEETINGS WHERE 18 PAUL MARITZ TOOK THE POSITION THAT WE SHOULDN'T 19 DO THE UPDATE, AND--THE MACOFFICE 97 UPDATE. 20 AND THE MAIN NEGOTIATION WE HAD WITH APPLE 21 AT THIS POINT WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT A PATENT 22 CROSS-LICENSE, AND SO I SAID TO PAUL I WANTED TO 23 UNDERSTAND BETTER WHERE WE WERE ON THE PATENT 24 CROSS-LICENSE AND UNDERSTAND THE STATE OF THE 25 MACOFFICE DEVELOPMENT.
34 1 AND THEN IT APPEARS THAT THIS IS AN E-MAIL 2 THAT IS COMING AFTER THAT MEETING. I DON'T 3 REMEMBER SOMEBODY USING THOSE EXACT WORDS. 4 QUESTION: WHETHER YOU REMEMBER SOMEBODY 5 USING THE EXACT WORDS THAT MR. WALDMAN USES IN 6 HIS JUNE 27, 1997, E-MAIL TO YOU, DO YOU REMEMBER 7 PEOPLE TELLING YOU, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT THE THREAT 8 TO CANCEL MACOFFICE 97 WAS A STRONG BARGAINING 9 POINT THAT YOU HAD AGAINST APPLE AND THAT 10 CANCELING MACOFFICE 97 WOULD DO A GREAT DEAL OF 11 HARM TO APPLE IMMEDIATELY? 12 ANSWER: I KNOW THERE WAS THE INTERNAL 13 DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER TO DO THE UPDATE, AND I KNOW 14 THERE WAS THE PATENT DISCUSSION GOING ON. AND I 15 SAID THAT MAYBE--EVEN IF IT DIDN'T MAKE BUSINESS 16 SENSE TO DO THE UPDATE, MAYBE AS PART OF AN 17 OVERALL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PATENT 18 CROSS-LICENSE, THAT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND DO IT. 19 AND SO, A COMMITMENT TO DO THE UPGRADE WAS 20 ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TOLD APPLE WE MIGHT 21 COMMIT TO AS PART OF THE PATENT CROSS-LICENSE 22 RELATIONSHIP. 23 QUESTION: AND DID YOU BELIEVE IN 1997 THAT 24 CANCELING MACOFFICE 97 WOULD DO A GREAT DEAL OF 25 HARM TO APPLE, AS MR. WALDMAN WRITES YOU IT
35 1 WOULD? 2 ANSWER: THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER 3 TO DO THE UPGRADE AND WHETHER IT MADE BUSINESS 4 SENSE. I CAN'T REALLY SAY HOW MUCH IMPACT IT 5 WOULD HAVE ON APPLE OF US DOING THE UPGRADE OR 6 NOT. CERTAINLY BEN, AS THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF 7 THE UPGRADE, WAS VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT ITS 8 IMPORTANCE AND ITS DRAMATIC NATURE. 9 QUESTION: MY QUESTION TO YOU NOW, SIR, IS 10 WHETHER YOU BELIEVED THAT CANCELING MACOFFICE 97 11 WOULD DO A GREAT DEAL OF HARM TO APPLE. 12 ANSWER: WELL, I KNOW THAT APPLE WOULD 13 PREFER THAT WE HAVE A MORE UPDATED VERSION OF 14 MACOFFICE, THAT THAT WOULD BE A POSITIVE THING 15 FOR THEM, AND SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS PART OF THE 16 NEGOTIATION RELATIVE TO THE PATENT CROSS-LICENSE. 17 QUESTION: AND DID YOU BELIEVE THAT 18 CANCELING MACOFFICE 97 WOULD DO A GREAT DEAL OF 19 HARM TO APPLE? 20 ANSWER: I TOLD YOU I THINK IT WOULD BE 21 BETTER FOR APPLE TO HAVE EVERYBODY DOING MAJOR 22 UPGRADES LIKE THIS. I DOUBT--YOU KNOW, I 23 DON'T--I CAN'T CHARACTERIZE THE LEVEL OF BENEFIT 24 OF THE UPGRADE TO APPLE, BUT CERTAINLY IT'S 25 SOMETHING THEY WANTED US TO COMPLETE.
36 1 QUESTION: THE NEXT SENTENCE IN 2 MR. WALDMAN'S JUNE 27, 1997, E-MAIL TO YOU 3 BEGINS, `I ALSO BELIEVE THAT APPLE IS TAKING THIS 4 THREAT PRETTY SERIOUSLY.' 5 DID SOMEONE TELL YOU, IN OR ABOUT JUNE OF 6 1997, THAT APPLE WAS TAKING MICROSOFT'S THREAT TO 7 CANCEL MACOFFICE 97 SERIOUSLY OR PRETTY 8 SERIOUSLY? 9 ANSWER: WELL, MARITZ HAD TAKEN THE POSITION 10 THAT IT DIDN'T MAKE BUSINESS SENSE TO FINISH THIS 11 UPGRADE, AND IT'S VERY POSSIBLE APPLE MIGHT HAVE 12 HEARD ABOUT MARITZ'S OPINION THERE AND, 13 THEREFORE, BEEN WORRIED THAT WE, BUSINESS-WISE, 14 DIDN'T SEE A REASON TO COMPLETE THE UPGRADE, AND 15 THAT THEY--THEY WOULD HAVE THE OLDER MACOFFICE AS 16 OPPOSED TO THIS NEW WORK THAT WE WERE PARTWAY 17 ALONG ON. 18 QUESTION: MR. GATES, MY QUESTION IS NOT 19 WHAT POSITION MR. MARITZ DID OR DID NOT TAKE. MY 20 QUESTION IS WHETHER ANYONE TOLD YOU, IN OR ABOUT 21 JUNE OF 1997, THAT APPLE WAS TAKING PRETTY 22 SERIOUSLY MICROSOFT'S THREAT TO CANCEL 23 MACOFFICE 97. 24 ANSWER: APPLE MAY HAVE KNOWN THAT SENIOR 25 EXECUTIVES AT MICROSOFT, MARITZ IN PARTICULAR,
37 1 THOUGHT THAT IT DIDN'T MAKE BUSINESS SENSE TO 2 COMPLETE THAT UPGRADE. 3 QUESTION: MR. GATES, I'M NOT ASKING YOU 4 WHAT APPLE MAY HAVE KNOWN OR MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN. 5 WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IS WHETHER ANYBODY TOLD YOU, 6 IN OR ABOUT JUNE OF 1997, THAT APPLE WAS TAKING 7 PRETTY SERIOUSLY MICROSOFT'S THREAT TO CANCEL 8 MACOFFICE 97. 9 ANSWER: THOSE PARTICULAR WORDS? 10 QUESTION: TOLD YOU THAT IN WORDS OR IN 11 SUBSTANCE. 12 ANSWER: I THINK I REMEMBER HEARING THAT 13 APPLE HAD HEARD ABOUT MARITZ'S VIEW THAT IT 14 DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO CONTINUE THE UPGRADE, 15 BUT--AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY WANTED US TO 16 CONTINUE THE UPGRADE. BUT I--I DON'T REMEMBER 17 ANY OF THE--IT BEING PHRASED AT ALL THE WAY 18 YOU'RE PHRASING IT. 19 QUESTION: WELL, THE WAY I'M PHRASING IT IS 20 THE WAY THAT MR. WALDMAN PHRASED IT TO YOU IN HIS 21 E-MAIL OF JUNE 27 OF 1997; CORRECT, SIR? 22 ANSWER: WELL, IN READING IT, I SEE THOSE 23 WORDS, YES." 24 (PAUSE.) 25 "QUESTION: MR. GATES, MR. WALDMAN, ON JUNE
38 1 27, 1997, SENDS YOU AN E-MAIL THAT SAYS, `THE 2 THREAT TO CANCEL MACOFFICE 97 IS CERTAINLY THE 3 STRONGEST BARGAINING POINT WE HAVE, AS DOING SO 4 WILL DO A GREAT DEAL OF HARM TO APPLE 5 IMMEDIATELY. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT APPLE IS TAKING 6 THIS THREAT PRETTY SERIOUSLY,' CLOSED QUOTE. 7 DO YOU RECALL ANYONE-- 8 ANSWER: DO YOU WANT TO FINISH THE SENTENCE 9 OR NOT? 10 QUESTION: YOU CAN, IF YOU THINK IT IS 11 NECESSARY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. 12 DO YOU RECALL ANYONE TELLING YOU WHAT I HAVE 13 JUST QUOTED, IN WORDS OR IN SUBSTANCE, IN OR 14 ABOUT JUNE OF 1997? 15 ANSWER: NO." 16 (PAUSE.) 17 "QUESTION: OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU TO LOOK AT 18 A DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS GOVERNMENT 19 EXHIBIT 260." 20 DID YOU SEND THIS E-MAIL, MR. GATES, ON OR 21 ABOUT JUNE 23, 1996? 22 ANSWER: I DON'T REMEMBER IT SPECIFICALLY, 23 BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO DOUBT THAT I DID. 24 QUESTION: IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH YOU SAY, 25 QUOTE, I HAVE TWO KEY GOALS IN INVESTING IN THE 26 APPLE RELATIONSHIP: ONE, MAINTAIN OUR 27 APPLICATIONS SHARE ON THE PLATFORM; AND TWO, SEE 28 IF WE CAN GET THEM TO EMBRACE INTERNET EXPLORER 29 IN SOME WAY, CLOSED QUOTE. 30 DO YOU SEE THAT? 31 ANSWER: YEAH. 32 QUESTION: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR 33 RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT YOUR TWO KEY GOALS WERE 34 IN CONNECTION WITH APPLE IN JUNE OF 1996? 35 ANSWER: FIRST OF ALL, JUNE OF 1996 IS NOT 36 IN THE TIME FRAME THAT YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION 37 RELATED TO. AND CERTAINLY IN THE E-MAIL TO THIS 38 GROUP, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PATENT THING, 39 BUT BELIEVE ME, IT WAS OUR TOP GOAL IN THINKING 40 ABOUT APPLE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS BECAUSE OF THEIR
40 1 ASSERTIONS. 2 QUESTION: MY TIME FRAME IN MY QUESTION, 3 SIR, WAS A TIME FRAME BEGINNING IN 1996, WHEN YOU 4 BEGAN TO VIEW NETSCAPE OR THE JAVA RUNTIME THREAT 5 AS A COMPETITIVE THREAT TO MICROSOFT. 6 ANSWER: AND THAT WAS AFTER JUNE OF 1996. 7 QUESTION: AND IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT IN 8 JUNE OF 1996 YOU DID NOT CONSIDER NETSCAPE TO BE 9 A COMPETITIVE THREAT TO MICROSOFT? 10 ANSWER: NETSCAPE WAS A COMPETITOR, BUT IN 11 TERMS OF JAVA AND ALL THE RUNTIME-RELATED ISSUES, 12 WE DIDN'T HAVE A CLEAR VIEW OF THAT AT ALL. 13 QUESTION: SO THAT--I WANT TO BE SURE I'VE 14 GOT YOUR TESTIMONY ACCURATELY. 15 IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT IN JUNE OF 1996 16 YOU CONSIDERED NETSCAPE TO BE A COMPETITIVE 17 THREAT, BUT YOU DID NOT CONSIDER JAVA OR JAVA 18 RUNTIME TO BE A COMPETITIVE THREAT; IS THAT YOUR 19 TESTIMONY? 20 ANSWER: WE CONSIDERED NETSCAPE TO BE A 21 COMPETITOR, AND I TOLD YOU EARLIER THAT UNTIL 22 LATE '96, WE WERE UNCLEAR ABOUT OUR POSITION ON 23 VARIOUS JAVA RUNTIME THINGS AND WHAT OTHER 24 COMPANIES WERE DOING AND WHAT THAT MEANT FOR US 25 COMPETITIVELY.
41 1 QUESTION: DO YOU AGREE THAT IN JUNE OF 2 1996, THE TWO KEY GOALS THAT YOU HAD IN TERMS OF 3 THE APPLE RELATIONSHIP WERE, QUOTE, ONE, MAINTAIN 4 YOUR APPLICATIONS SHARE ON THE PLATFORM; AND TWO, 5 SEE IF YOU COULD GET APPLE TO EMBRACE INTERNET 6 EXPLORER IN SOME WAY? 7 ANSWER: NO. 8 QUESTION: DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPLANATION FOR 9 WHY YOU WOULD HAVE WRITTEN TO MR. MARITZ AND 10 MR. SILVERBERG ON JUNE 23, 1996, THAT THOSE WERE 11 YOUR TWO KEY GOALS IN THE APPLE RELATIONSHIP? 12 ANSWER: NO, THEY WEREN'T INVOLVED IN THE 13 PATENT ISSUE AT ALL, SO WHEN I WRITE TO THEM, I'M 14 FOCUSED ON THE ISSUES THAT RELATE TO THEM. 15 I DO MENTION PATENTS IN HERE, BUT THAT 16 CERTAINLY WAS THE PRIMARY GOAL AT THIS TIME AND 17 IN SUBSEQUENT TIMES. 18 QUESTION: LET ME BE CLEAR. WHEN YOU WRITE 19 TO MR. MARITZ AND MR. SILVERBERG, YOU TALK ABOUT 20 PATENTS, DO YOU NOT, SIR? 21 ANSWER: WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT? 22 QUESTION: WELL, DID YOU TALK ABOUT PATENTS? 23 ANSWER: DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THE ENTIRE 24 MAIL? 25 QUESTION: HAVE YOU READ IT ENOUGH TO KNOW
42 1 WHETHER YOU TALK ABOUT PATENTS? 2 ANSWER: I SAW THE WORD "PATENT" IN ONE 3 PLACE. IF I READ THE WHOLE THING, I COULD FIND 4 OUT IF IT'S IN THE OTHER PLACES AS WELL. 5 QUESTION: YOU DO TALK ABOUT PATENT 6 CROSS-LICENSE, DO YOU NOT, IN THIS MEMO? AND IF 7 YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE LAST PAGE, FIVE LINES 8 FROM THE BOTTOM. 9 ANSWER: YEAH, THEY WEREN'T INVOLVED IN THE 10 PATENT ISSUES AT ALL, SO IT LOOKS LIKE IN THIS 11 MAIL I JUST MENTION THAT IN A SUMMARY PART, BUT 12 IT WAS OUR TOP GOAL IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH 13 APPLE. 14 QUESTION: WHEN YOU WRITE TO MR. MARITZ AND 15 MR. SILVERBERG, YOU DON'T DESCRIBE THAT AS YOUR 16 TOP GOAL. IN FACT, YOU DON'T EVEN DESCRIBE IT AS 17 ONE OF YOUR TWO OR THREE KEY GOALS; CORRECT, SIR? 18 ANSWER: THIS PIECE OF E-MAIL DOESN'T TALK 19 ABOUT THE PATENT GOAL AS THE TOP GOAL. IT'S MOST 20 LIKELY THAT'S BECAUSE THE PEOPLE COPIED ON THE 21 MAIL DON'T HAVE A THING TO DO WITH IT, AND I 22 WOULDN'T DISTRACT THEM WITH IT. 23 QUESTION: I WANT TO BE SURE I HAVE YOUR 24 TESTIMONY CORRECT. 25 IN JUNE OF 1996, WHAT WAS PAUL MARITZ'S
43 1 TITLE? 2 ANSWER: HE WAS INVOLVED IN PRODUCT 3 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. 4 QUESTION: HE WAS INVOLVED IN PRODUCT 5 DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. 6 WHAT WAS HIS TITLE? 7 ANSWER: I DON'T KNOW. SYSTEMS. 8 QUESTION: SYSTEMS? 9 ANSWER: UMM-HMM. 10 QUESTION: DID HE HAVE A TITLE THAT WENT 11 WITH THAT? 12 ANSWER: SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT-SYSTEMS. I 13 DON'T KNOW. 14 QUESTION: SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT-SYSTEMS, I 15 SEE. 16 DID MR. SILVERBERG HAVE A POSITION IN JUNE 17 OF 1996? 18 ANSWER: HE WORKED FOR MR. MARITZ. 19 QUESTION: DID HE HAVE A TITLE? 20 ANSWER: I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS TITLE WAS AT 21 THE TIME. HE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN OFFICER OF SOME 22 KIND. 23 QUESTION: AN OFFICER OF SOME KIND. 24 SO, YOU'RE WRITING A MEMO TO PAUL MARITZ, A 25 SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT; AND BRAD SILVERBERG, AN
44 1 OFFICER OF SOME KIND, AND YOU'RE SENDING COPIES 2 TO FOUR OTHER PEOPLE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLE 3 MEETING. AND YOU SAY, `I HAVE TWO KEY GOALS IN 4 INVESTING IN THE APPLE RELATIONSHIP.' 5 ANSWER: THAT'S QUITE DISTINCT THAN ANY 6 GOALS I MIGHT HAVE FOR A DEAL WITH APPLE. IT 7 SAYS, `I HAVE TWO KEY GOALS IN INVESTING IN THE 8 APPLE RELATIONSHIP,' NOT, `I HAVE TWO KEY GOALS 9 FOR A DEAL WITH APPLE.' 10 QUESTION: WELL, SIR, AT THE BOTTOM YOU SAY 11 WHAT YOU PROPOSE IN TERMS OF A DEAL, AND YOU TALK 12 ABOUT WHAT APPLE WILL GET OUT OF THE DEAL AND 13 WHAT MICROSOFT WILL GET OUT OF THE DEAL; CORRECT, 14 SIR? 15 ANSWER: DO YOU WANT ME TO READ TO YOU THE 16 E-MAIL? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING MORE THAN 17 JUST WHAT IT SAYS IN THE E-MAIL. I'M GLAD TO 18 READ IT TO YOU. 19 QUESTION: WELL, SIR, DOES IT SAY AT THE 20 BOTTOM OF THE E-MAIL THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING 21 SOMETHING WITH APPLE AND YOU ARE IDENTIFYING WHAT 22 APPLE WOULD GET UNDER YOUR PROPOSED DEAL AND WHAT 23 MICROSOFT WOULD GET UNDER YOUR PROPOSED DEAL? 24 ANSWER: YEAH, THAT'S THE BOTTOM OF THE 25 E-MAIL.
45 1 QUESTION: IN FACT, THE BOTTOM OF THE E-MAIL 2 TALKING ABOUT A PROPOSED APPLE MICROSOFT DEAL, 3 YOU SAY, QUOTE, THE DEAL WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS, 4 AND THEN YOU GOT A COLUMN `APPLE GETS' AND A 5 COLUMN `MICROSOFT GETS' AND A COLUMN `BOTH GETS;' 6 RIGHT, SIR? 7 ANSWER: I'M READING THAT. 8 QUESTION: OKAY. NOW, IN THIS E-MAIL OF A 9 PAGE OR A PAGE AND A HALF IN WHICH YOU ARE 10 PROPOSING THIS DEAL, YOU DESCRIBE YOUR TWO KEY 11 GOALS AS MAINTAINING MICROSOFT'S APPLICATIONS 12 SHARE ON THE PLATFORM, AND GETTING APPLE TO 13 EMBRACE INTERNET EXPLORER; CORRECT? 14 ANSWER: NO, THAT'S WRONG. 15 QUESTION: THAT'S WRONG, OKAY. 16 ANSWER: THE WORD `DEAL' AND THE WORD 17 `RELATIONSHIP' ARE NOT THE SAME WORD. THIS SAYS, 18 `I HAVE TWO KEY GOALS IN INVESTING IN THE APPLE 19 RELATIONSHIP.' THIS DOWN HERE IS AN AGREEMENT 20 WHICH I THOUGHT WE COULD REACH WITH APPLE. 21 QUESTION: AND IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY HERE 22 TODAY UNDER OATH THAT YOUR TWO KEY GOALS IN 23 INVESTING IN THE APPLE RELATIONSHIP, WHICH YOU 24 MENTIONED IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THIS E-MAIL, 25 IS DIFFERENT THAN YOUR TWO KEY GOALS IN THE
46 1 PROPOSED DEAL THAT YOU DESCRIBE FIVE PARAGRAPHS 2 LATER? 3 ANSWER: I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN HERE ABOUT 4 THE KEY GOALS--TWO KEY GOALS IN THE DEAL. I'VE 5 TOLD YOU THAT I'M CERTAIN THAT MY PRIMARY GOAL IN 6 ANY DEAL WAS THE PATENT CROSS-LICENSE. 7 QUESTION: MR. GATES, MY QUESTION IS WHETHER 8 IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY HERE UNDER OATH THAT 9 WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR TWO KEY GOALS IN 10 INVESTING IN THE APPLE RELATIONSHIP IN THE SECOND 11 PARAGRAPH OF THIS E-MAIL, THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN 12 WHAT YOUR KEY GOALS WERE IN THE DEAL THAT YOU 13 PROPOSED FIVE PARAGRAPHS LATER? 14 ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT. INVESTING IN A 15 RELATIONSHIP IS DIFFERENT THAN THE DEAL. 16 QUESTION: NOW, YOU DON'T TELL MR. MARITZ OR 17 MR. SILVERBERG THAT YOUR GOALS FOR INVESTING IN 18 THE APPLE RELATIONSHIP ARE DIFFERENT THAN YOUR 19 GOALS IN THE PROPOSED DEAL, DO YOU, SIR? 20 ANSWER: BUT THE GOALS AND THE DEAL ARE 21 QUITE DIFFERENT, SO OBVIOUSLY, THEY WOULD HAVE 22 KNOWN THEY WERE QUITE DIFFERENT. 23 QUESTION: WELL, SIR, YOU SAY THE GOALS AND 24 THE DEAL ARE QUITE DIFFERENT. ONE OF YOUR TWO 25 KEY GOALS THAT YOU TALK ABOUT IN YOUR FIRST
47 1 PARAGRAPH--IN YOUR SECOND PARAGRAPH IS TO GET 2 APPLE TO EMBRACE INTERNET EXPLORER IN SOME WAY. 3 AND THE VERY FIRST THING UNDER WHAT MICROSOFT 4 GETS IN YOUR PROPOSED DEAL IS, QUOTE, APPLE 5 ENDORSES MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER TECHNOLOGY. 6 DO YOU SEE THAT, SIR? 7 ANSWER: UMM-HMM. 8 QUESTION: NOW, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR 9 RECOLLECTION THAT THE DEAL THAT YOU WERE 10 PROPOSING HAD SOME RELATIONSHIP TO THE TWO KEY 11 GOALS THAT YOU WERE IDENTIFYING? 12 ANSWER: SOME RELATIONSHIP, YES, BUT THEY 13 AREN'T THE SAME THING AT ALL." 14 (PAUSE.) 15 "QUESTION: AND WHEN YOU SAID IN YOUR 16 JUNE 23, 1996, E-MAIL, QUOTE, I HAVE TWO KEY 17 GOALS IN INVESTING IN THE APPLE RELATIONSHIP, 18 CLOSED QUOTE, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT YOURSELF 19 PERSONALLY; IS THAT CORRECT? 20 ANSWER: YEAH. WHEN I SAY `INVESTING IN THE 21 APPLE RELATIONSHIP,' THAT MEANS SPENDING TIME 22 WITH APPLE AND GROWING THE RELATIONSHIP. 23 QUESTION: AND WHEN IN DESCRIBING THE DEAL 24 THE FIVE PARAGRAPHS LATER, THE VERY FIRST THING 25 THAT MICROSOFT GETS IS, QUOTE, APPLE ENDORSES
48 1 MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER TECHNOLOGY, CLOSED 2 QUOTE, DID THAT INDICATE TO YOU THAT THAT WAS AN 3 IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT YOU WERE GETTING IN TERMS 4 OF THE DEAL? 5 ANSWER: NO SUCH DEAL WAS EVER STRUCK, SO 6 I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 7 QUESTION: WAS THAT AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE 8 DEAL THAT YOU WERE TRYING TO GET, SIR? 9 ANSWER: WE NEVER GOT AS FAR AS TRYING TO 10 GET THAT DEAL, UNFORTUNATELY. 11 QUESTION: YOU NEVER GOT AS FAR AS TRYING TO 12 GET THAT DEAL? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? 13 ANSWER: NO. WELL, IN THIS TIME FRAME, GIL 14 AMELIO'S TOTAL FOCUS WAS ON HIS NEW OS STRATEGY, 15 AND SO WHAT I OUTLINED HERE WE NEVER--WE NEVER 16 GOT THEM TO CONSIDER. 17 QUESTION: WELL, SIR, YOUR E-MAIL BEGINS, 18 `LAST TUESDAY NIGHT, I WENT DOWN TO ADDRESS THE 19 TOP APPLE EXECUTIVES;' CORRECT, SIR? 20 ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT. 21 QUESTION: AND DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, WHEN 22 YOU'RE INTRODUCING THE DEAL, YOU SAY, QUOTE, I 23 PROPOSED. 24 NOW, YOU ARE REFERRING TO WHAT YOU PROPOSED 25 TO THE APPLE TOP EXECUTIVES, ARE YOU NOT, SIR?
49 1 ANSWER: YES. 2 QUESTION: OKAY. AND WHAT YOU PROPOSED WAS, 3 QUOTE, THE DEAL THAT YOU THEN DESCRIBE AT THE 4 BOTTOM OF THE FIRST PAGE AND THE TOP OF THE 5 SECOND PAGE; CORRECT, SIR? 6 ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT. 7 QUESTION: AND THAT WAS A DEAL THAT YOU 8 PROPOSED THE TUESDAY NIGHT BEFORE JUNE 23, 1996, 9 TO WHICH YOU DESCRIBE AS THE TOP APPLE 10 EXECUTIVES; CORRECT, SIR? 11 ANSWER: I PUT FORWARD SOME OF THOSE POINTS. 12 QUESTION: WELL, YOU PUT THEM FORWARD, AND 13 YOU DESCRIBE THEM AS PROPOSING A DEAL; CORRECT, 14 SIR? 15 ANSWER: THAT'S HOW I DESCRIBE IT HERE, YES. 16 QUESTION: ALL RIGHT, SIR. NOW, YOU'D SAID 17 THAT THE DEAL THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT NEVER 18 GOT DONE. 19 DID YOU EVER GET APPLE TO ENDORSE MICROSOFT 20 INTERNET EXPLORER TECHNOLOGY? 21 ANSWER: YOU'RE TRYING TO JUST READ PART OF 22 THAT? 23 QUESTION: I'M ACTUALLY--WHAT I'M DOING IS 24 ASKING A QUESTION RIGHT NOW, SIR. I'M ASKING 25 WHETHER IN 1996 OR OTHERWISE, AT ANY TIME, DID
50 1 YOU GET APPLE TO ENDORSE MICROSOFT INTERNET 2 EXPLORER TECHNOLOGY? 3 ANSWER: WELL, YOU CAN GET A COPY OF THE 4 AGREEMENT WE REACHED WITH APPLE AND DECIDE IF, IN 5 READING THAT, YOU THINK IT MEETS THAT CRITERIA OR 6 NOT. 7 QUESTION: SIR, I'M ASKING YOU--AS THE CHIEF 8 EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF MICROSOFT, I'M ASKING YOU 9 WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU ACHIEVED THAT 10 OBJECTIVE. 11 ANSWER: WE DID NOT GET SOME EXCLUSIVE 12 ENDORSEMENT. WE DID GET SOME--THERE'S SOME PART 13 OF THE DEAL THAT HAS TO DO WITH INTERNET EXPLORER 14 TECHNOLOGY. 15 QUESTION: DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT PART OF THE 16 DEAL IS? 17 ANSWER: NOT REALLY. IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO 18 WITH THEY WILL AT LEAST SHIP IT ALONG WITH OTHER 19 BROWSERS. 20 QUESTION: DOES THE DEAL PROHIBIT THEM FROM 21 SHIPPING NETSCAPE'S BROWSER WITHOUT ALSO SHIPPING 22 INTERNET EXPLORER? 23 ANSWER: I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DEAL TO 24 UNDERSTAND. 25 QUESTION: IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY, SITTING HERE
51 1 TODAY UNDER OATH, THAT YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW, ONE 2 WAY OR THE OTHER, WHETHER APPLE IS TODAY FREE TO 3 SHIP NETSCAPE'S BROWSER WITHOUT ALSO SHIPPING 4 INTERNET EXPLORER? 5 ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT. 6 QUESTION: WHEN YOU IDENTIFY THINGS AS `KEY 7 GOALS,' DO YOU TYPICALLY TEND TO FOLLOW UP AND 8 SEE TO WHAT EXTENT THOSE GOALS HAVE BEEN 9 ACHIEVED? 10 ANSWER: IN A VERY GENERAL SENSE, YES." 11 (PAUSE.) 12 "QUESTION: DID YOUR GOALS CHANGE? 13 ANSWER: GOALS FOR WHAT? FOR INVESTING IN 14 THIS RELATIONSHIP? 15 QUESTION: YOU SAY IN THIS E-MAIL THAT YOU 16 HAVE TWO KEY GOALS FOR INVESTING IN THE APPLE 17 RELATIONSHIP. ONE OF-- 18 ANSWER: IN INVESTING IN THE APPLE 19 RELATIONSHIP. 20 QUESTION: ONE OF THEM IS TO GET APPLE TO 21 EMBRACE INTERNET TECHNOLOGY IN SOME WAY. WHAT 22 I'M ASKING YOU IS WHETHER THAT CHANGED AFTER THIS 23 PERSON GOT FIRED. 24 ANSWER: WE RE-EVALUATED ALL OF OUR THOUGHTS 25 ABOUT WORKING WITH APPLE BASED ON WHAT THE NEW
52 1 MANAGEMENT WAS GOING TO DO, WHETHER THEY WERE 2 GOING TO TARGET THE MACHINES, WHAT THEY WERE 3 GOING TO DO WITH THEIR MACHINES. SINCE THEY 4 CONTINUED TO SAY THAT WE WERE IN VIOLATION OF 5 THEIR PATENTS, IT CONTINUED TO BE OUR TOP GOAL TO 6 GET SOME TYPE OF PATENT CROSS-LICENSE. 7 MR. BOIES: READ THE QUESTION BACK, PLEASE. 8 (THE RECORD WAS READ AS FOLLOWS:) 9 QUESTION: YOU SAY IN THIS E-MAIL THAT YOU 10 HAVE TWO KEY GOALS FOR INVESTING IN THE APPLE 11 RELATIONSHIP. ONE OF-- 12 ANSWER: IN INVESTING IN THE APPLE 13 RELATIONSHIP. 14 QUESTION: ONE OF THEM IS TO GET APPLE TO 15 EMBRACE INTERNET TECHNOLOGY IN SOME WAY. WHAT 16 I'M ASKING YOU IS WHETHER THAT CHANGED AFTER THIS 17 PERSON GOT FIRED. 18 THE WITNESS: YOU KEEP, EITHER INTENTIONALLY 19 OR UNINTENTIONALLY, TRYING TO CONFUSE MY GOALS 20 FOR INVESTING IN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GOALS 21 WE HAD OVERALL FOR VARIOUS DEALINGS WITH APPLE. 22 CERTAINLY, THE GOALS I HAD FOR INVESTING IN THE 23 RELATIONSHIP, THAT I HAD TO START OVER AND 24 RETHINK BECAUSE THE INVESTMENT WAS TO SPEND TIME 25 WITH THE CEO WHO HAD BEEN FIRED.
53 1 BY MR. BOIES: 2 QUESTION: MR. GATES, NEITHER IN THIS E-MAIL 3 NOR IN ANY OTHER DOCUMENT THAT EITHER OF US IS 4 AWARE OF, DO YOU MAKE THAT DISTINCTION THAT 5 YOU'RE MAKING NOW; CORRECT? 6 MR. HEINER: OBJECTION. 7 BY MR. BOIES: 8 QUESTION: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION 9 I'M ASKING? 10 ANSWER: THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT SAY THAT MY 11 GOALS FOR DEALING--DOES NOT STATE MY GOALS FOR 12 DEALING WITH APPLE UP HERE. IT STATES MY GOALS 13 IN INVESTING IN THE APPLE RELATIONSHIP. SO, 14 THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION RIGHT THERE IN THAT 15 DOCUMENT. 16 QUESTION: MR. GATES, THIS DOCUMENT DEALS 17 WITH A PROPOSED DEAL THAT YOU MADE TO TOP APPLE 18 EXECUTIVES; CORRECT? 19 ANSWER: THAT'S ONLY ONE PART OF WHAT IS IN 20 THE DOCUMENT. THERE IS A PART WHERE IT TALKS 21 ABOUT--YOU NEVER MENTIONED IT, BUT THE FIRST GOAL 22 IS MAINTAIN OUR APPLICATIONS SHARE ON THE 23 PLATFORM. THAT'S SOMETHING I'M DOING IN 24 INVESTING IN THE APPLE RELATIONSHIP, AND THAT'S 25 NOT RELATED TO THE DEAL THAT'S GIVEN--THE
54 1 PROPOSED DEAL THAT'S DISCUSSED BELOW IN THE 2 E-MAIL. 3 SO, THOSE ARE CLEARLY TWO SEPARATE THINGS. 4 RELATED, BUT SEPARATE. 5 QUESTION: WHAT I THINK I'VE DONE IS I THINK 6 I HAVE MENTIONED THE FIRST GOAL A NUMBER OF 7 TIMES. 8 ANSWER: I DON'T THINK SO." 9 "QUESTION: NOW, YOU SAY HERE, `I HAVE TWO 10 KEY GOALS IN INVESTING IN APPLE RELATIONSHIP, ONE 11 OF WHICH WAS TO GET APPLE TO EMBRACE INTERNET 12 EXPLORER TECHNOLOGY IN SOME WAY.' 13 DID THAT CONTINUE TO BE A GOAL THAT YOU HAD 14 AFTER 1996? 15 ANSWER: IT WASN'T A GOAL IN INVESTING IN 16 THE APPLE RELATIONSHIP IN TERMS--IN THE SENSE I 17 MEANT IT HERE. IT WAS A GOAL FOR OUR OVERALL 18 DEALING WITH APPLE. 19 QUESTION: OKAY.
55 1 ANSWER: ONE OF MANY. 2 QUESTION: OKAY. WAS IT A KEY GOAL? 3 ANSWER: I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY `KEY 4 GOAL.' IT WAS A GOAL. 5 QUESTION: WHAT I MEAN BY KEY GOAL IS WHAT 6 YOU MEANT BY KEY GOAL IN YOUR JUNE 23, 1996, 7 E-MAIL, MR. GATES. 8 ANSWER: THAT'S ABOUT INVESTING IN THE APPLE 9 RELATIONSHIP, WHICH MEANT SPENDING TIME WITH GIL 10 AMELIO, SO I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU CAN TAKE THE WORD 11 OUT OF THERE AND APPLY IT TO A COMPLETELY 12 DIFFERENT CONTEXT. 13 QUESTION: BUT, SIR, WHEN YOU SAY A 14 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONTEXT, LET'S BE CLEAR 15 ABOUT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. 16 THE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONTEXT THAT YOU'RE 17 TALKING ABOUT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INVESTING 18 IN THE APPLE RELATIONSHIP AND DOING A DEAL WITH 19 APPLE; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? 20 ANSWER: NO. WE HAVE GOALS FOR OUR GENERAL 21 DEALINGS WITH APPLE, WHICH CAME TO A DEAL--WE 22 ACTUALLY REACHED A DEAL EITHER IN LATE JULY '97 23 OR EARLY AUGUST. BUT THERE WAS A SEPARATE THING 24 OF WHAT WAS THAT DEAL, WHAT WERE WE ABLE TO 25 ACHIEVE, WHAT WERE WE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WHEN WE
56 1 WERE NEGOTIATING WITH THE PREVIOUS MANAGEMENT A 2 DEAL, AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IN TERMS OF 3 SPENDING MY TIME INVESTING IN THE APPLE 4 RELATIONSHIP. 5 QUESTION: AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, IT IS 6 YOUR TESTIMONY UNDER OATH, AND ALTHOUGH YOU CAN'T 7 RECALL ACTUALLY HAVING SENT THIS E-MAIL, YOU'RE 8 CONFIDENT WHEN YOU WROTE THIS AND REFERRED TO 9 INVESTING IN THE APPLE RELATIONSHIP, YOU MEANT 10 ONLY WHAT YOU EXPECTED TO GET OUT OF SPENDING 11 TIME WITH THE APPLE EXECUTIVES; IS THAT YOUR 12 TESTIMONY? 13 ANSWER: YEAH, I WAS EXPLAINING WHY I WAS 14 SPENDING TIME WITH GIL AMELIO. 15 QUESTION: AND THAT'S ALL YOU MEANT TO BE 16 SAYING HERE, IS YOUR TESTIMONY? 17 ANSWER: THAT'S WHAT--IN READING THIS, 18 THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE I WAS TRYING TO COMMUNICATE 19 TO THE RECIPIENTS OF THE E-MAIL. 20 QUESTION: ALL RIGHT, SIR. LET ME ASK YOU 21 TO LOOK AT A DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS 22 GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 255."
57 1 "QUESTION: THIS PURPORTS TO BE AN E-MAIL, 2 AND THE SECOND ITEM ON THE E-MAIL IS AN E-MAIL 3 FROM JOHN LUDWIG TO DON BRADFORD, DATED AUGUST 4 21, 1997, AND THE SUBJECT IS `CONVERSATIONS WITH 5 BILLG LAST NIGHT.' 6 AND THE BILLG REFERRED TO THERE IS YOU; 7 CORRECT, SIR? 8 ANSWER: YES. 9 QUESTION: AND IT BEGINS, `I WAS AT THE EXEC 10 STAFF MEETING LAST NIGHT.' 11 AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN FOR THE RECORD WHAT THE 12 `EXEC STAFF MEETING' WAS. 13 ANSWER: HE IS REFERRING TO A REGULAR 14 GET-TOGETHER FOUR TIMES A YEAR OF THE MICROSOFT 15 EXECUTIVE STAFF. 16 QUESTION: AND HE GOES ON TO SAY THAT THERE 17 WERE THREE INTERESTING EXCHANGES WITH BILL AND 18 THE WHOLE GROUP ABOUT APPLE. DO YOU SEE THAT? 19 ANSWER: I SEE IT. 20 QUESTION: AND NUMBER ONE IS, QUOTE, BILL'S 21 TOP PRIORITY IS FOR US TO GET THE BROWSER IN THE 22 OCTOBER OS RELEASE FROM APPLE. WE SHOULD DO 23 WHATEVER IT TAKES TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. IF WE ARE 24 GETTING SHUT OUT, WE SHOULD ESCALATE TO BILL.
58 1 YOU SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ENGAGING DEEPLY 2 WITH APPLE ON THIS ONE AND RESOLVING ANY AND ALL 3 ISSUES, CLOSED QUOTE. 4 DO YOU RECALL CONVEYING TO YOUR EXECUTIVE 5 STAFF, IN OR ABOUT AUGUST OF 1997, THAT YOUR TOP 6 PRIORITY WAS TO GET MICROSOFT'S BROWSER IN THE 7 OCTOBER OS RELEASE FROM APPLE? 8 ANSWER: NO, I DON'T RECALL THAT. 9 QUESTION: THE TOP E-MAIL, WHICH IS FROM DON 10 BRADFORD TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, DATED AUGUST 21, 11 1997, AND IS ALSO ON THE SUBJECT OF, QUOTE, 12 CONVERSATIONS WITH BILLG LAST NIGHT, CLOSED 13 QUOTE, SAYS THAT MR. BRADFORD AND SOMEONE ELSE, 14 MOHAN THOMAS, QUOTE, WILL TAKE THE LEAD ON 15 WORKING OUT THE APPLE BUNDLE DEAL, CLOSED QUOTE. 16 DO YOU SEE THAT? 17 ANSWER: YES. 18 QUESTION: DID YOU INSTRUCT YOUR EXECUTIVE 19 STAFF, IN OR ABOUT AUGUST OF 1997, TO WORK OUT A, 20 QUOTE, APPLE BUNDLE DEAL, CLOSED QUOTE? 21 ANSWER: WELL, I THINK THIS IS POST THE 22 AUGUST AGREEMENT, LATE JULY OR EARLY AUGUST 23 AGREEMENT WE REACHED WITH APPLE. AND I THINK 24 THERE WERE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY 25 WOULD INCLUDE OR BUNDLE IE WITH SOME OF THEIR
59 1 SHIPMENTS. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THAT'S REFERRING 2 TO. 3 QUESTION: AND IS THAT WHAT YOUR PRESENT 4 RECOLLECTION IS THAT YOU TOLD YOUR EXECUTIVE 5 STAFF IN AUGUST OF 1997? 6 ANSWER: WELL, I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY 7 WHAT I SAID TO THE EXECUTIVE STAFF ABOUT APPLE, 8 BUT IT APPEARS LUDWIG TOOK OUT OF THAT THAT HE 9 WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER OUTS THAT 10 APPLE HAD UNDER THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT FOR NOT 11 SHIPPING OUR TECHNOLOGY, THAT WE AVOIDED THOSE 12 BEING A PROBLEM THAT PREVENTED THEM FROM SHIPPING 13 OUR TECHNOLOGY. 14 QUESTION: WELL, APPLE WASN'T PROHIBITED 15 FROM SHIPPING YOUR TECHNOLOGY IN AUGUST OF 1997, 16 WAS IT, SIR? 17 ANSWER: NO. I ACTUALLY THINK THERE WAS--IF 18 WE--I DON'T KNOW THE APPLE AGREEMENT, I HAVEN'T 19 READ IT, BUT I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING IN THERE 20 THAT IF WE GOT CERTAIN THINGS DONE AND IF THERE 21 WERE NO PROBLEMS AND IT PASSED TESTS AND WE WERE 22 READY IN TIME, THAT THEY WOULD ACTUALLY 23 AFFIRMATIVELY INCLUDE SOME OF OUR TECHNOLOGY IN 24 VARIOUS OS RELEASES. AND THIS APPEARS TO BE A 25 DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO
60 1 BE ABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS ON US RELATED TO 2 THAT. 3 QUESTION: IT IS CLEAR THAT GETTING THE 4 BROWSER IN THE OCTOBER OS RELEASE FROM APPLE WAS 5 SOMETHING THAT YOU, BILL GATES, AND MICROSOFT 6 WANTED; CORRECT, SIR? 7 ANSWER: YES, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE 8 WANTED. 9 QUESTION: OKAY. THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE 10 SECOND PARAGRAPH SAYS, `BILL WAS CLEAR THAT HIS 11 WHOLE GOAL HERE IS TO KEEP APPLE AND SUN SPLIT. 12 HE DOESN'T CARE THAT MUCH ABOUT BEING ALIGNED 13 WITH APPLE. HE JUST WANTS THEM SPLIT FROM OTHER 14 POTENTIAL ALLIES.' 15 AND THAT RELATES TO JAVA, DOES IT NOT, SIR? 16 ANSWER: I DON'T HAVE A DIRECT RECOLLECTION, 17 BUT IF YOU READ THE SENTENCE IN FRONT OF IT, THAT 18 PARAGRAPH SEEMS TO RELATE TO JAVA RUNTIME. 19 QUESTION: NOW, DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION 20 OF TELLING YOUR EXECUTIVE STAFF, IN OR ABOUT 21 AUGUST 21, THAT YOUR WHOLE GOAL WITH RESPECT TO 22 APPLE RELATING TO JAVA RUNTIME WAS TO KEEP APPLE 23 AND SUN SPLIT? 24 ANSWER: NO. 25 QUESTION: WHO WAS AT THIS EXECUTIVE STAFF
61 1 MEETING? 2 ANSWER: PROBABLY MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE 3 STAFF. 4 QUESTION: AND WHO WERE THEY? 5 ANSWER: IT'S ABOUT 40 TO 50 PEOPLE. I 6 DOUBT YOU WANT TO TAKE THE TIME FOR ME TO GUESS. 7 WE GENERALLY GET ABOUT 70 PERCENT ATTENDANCE. 8 LOOKING AT THIS DOCUMENT, I THINK IT'S VERY 9 LIKELY THAT I WAS THERE AND JOHN LUDWIG WAS 10 THERE, BUT AS TO THE REST OF THE EXECUTIVE STAFF, 11 I'D JUST BE GUESSING. 12 IT'S VERY RARE FOR US TO HAVE NONEXECUTIVE 13 STAFF MEMBERS AT THOSE MEETINGS, ALTHOUGH 14 SOMETIMES IT HAPPENS. 15 QUESTION: IS MR. LUDWIG SOMEBODY WHO YOU 16 BELIEVE IS AN HONEST AND COMPETENT PERSON? 17 ANSWER: IN GENERAL, YES. 18 QUESTION: DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE 19 THAT HE WOULD MAKE UP ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT YOUR 20 STATEMENTS WERE? 21 ANSWER: NO." 1 "QUESTION: LET ME ASK YOU TO LOOK AT A 2 DOCUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS 3 GOVERNMENT 58. 4 THIS IS AN E-MAIL TO YOU FROM DAN SLIVKA, 5 DATED APRIL 14, 1997. AND THE SUBJECT IS, QUOTE, 6 JAVA REVIEW WITH YOU, CLOSED QUOTE. 7 DID YOU RECEIVE THIS E-MAIL IN OR ABOUT 8 APRIL OF 1997, MR. GATES?
68 1 ANSWER: I DON'T REMEMBER. 2 QUESTION: THE E-MAIL BEGINS THAT THE AUTHOR 3 IS WORKING WITH PAUL MARITZ TO SET UP A TWO- TO 4 THREE-HOUR REVIEW FOR YOU ON YOUR JAVA EFFORTS. 5 DO YOU SEE THAT? 6 ANSWER: ON OUR JAVA EFFORTS. 7 QUESTION: ON MICROSOFT'S JAVA EFFORTS. 8 ANSWER: NO, I THINK IT'S BEN SLIVKA'S 9 GROUP. 10 QUESTION: AND HE IS A MICROSOFT GROUP; 11 RIGHT? 12 ANSWER: YES. HE'S PART OF MICROSOFT, BUT 13 NOT ALL OF MICROSOFT. 14 QUESTION: SO, YOU WOULD INTERPRET THIS THAT 15 HE IS WORKING WITH PAUL MARITZ TO SET UP A TWO- 16 TO THREE-HOUR REVIEW FOR YOU OF PART OF 17 MICROSOFT'S JAVA EFFORTS BUT NOT ALL OF 18 MICROSOFT'S JAVA EFFORTS; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE 19 SAYING? 20 ANSWER: YEAH, THE WORK HIS GROUP IS DOING. 21 QUESTION: THE WORK HIS GROUP IS DOING ON 22 JAVA; RIGHT? 23 ANSWER: RIGHT. 24 QUESTION: OKAY. AND HE LISTS WHAT HE 25 DESCRIBES AS SOME PRETTY POINTED QUESTIONS THAT
69 1 YOU, MR. GATES, HAD ABOUT JAVA. DO YOU SEE THAT? 2 ANSWER: WELL, I'M NOT SURE THOSE ARE THE 3 POINTED QUESTIONS. IT SAYS, `I WANT TO MAKE SURE 4 I UNDERSTAND YOUR ISSUES/CONCERNS.' 5 QUESTION: WELL, THAT'S ACTUALLY THE LAST 6 PART OF A SENTENCE THAT BEGINS, QUOTE, WHEN I MET 7 WITH YOU LAST, YOU HAD A LOT OF PRETTY POINTED 8 QUESTIONS ABOUT JAVA, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I 9 UNDERSTAND YOUR ISSUES/CONCERNS. 10 THAT'S WHAT THE SENTENCE SAYS; CORRECT, SIR? 11 ANSWER: RIGHT. 12 QUESTION: AND WHEN MR. SLIVKA SAYS, `I MET 13 WITH YOU LAST,' HE'S TALKING ABOUT YOU, 14 MR. GATES; CORRECT, SIR? 15 ANSWER: YES. 16 QUESTION: AND WHEN HE SAYS, `YOU HAD A LOT 17 OF PRETTY POINTED QUESTIONS ABOUT JAVA,' HE'S 18 AGAIN TALKING ABOUT YOU, MR. GATES; CORRECT? 19 ANSWER: RIGHT. 20 QUESTION: AND THEN HE LISTS WHAT HE REFERS 21 TO AS A START: `ONE, WHAT IS OUR BUSINESS MODEL 22 FOR JAVA? TWO, HOW DO WE WREST CONTROL OF JAVA 23 AWAY FROM SUN?' 24 DO YOU SEE THAT? 25 ANSWER: UMM-HMM.
70 1 QUESTION: SOMETIME PRIOR TO APRIL 14, 1997, 2 HAD YOU CONVEYED TO MR. SLIVKA THAT ONE OF YOUR 3 POINTED QUESTIONS ABOUT JAVA WAS, QUOTE, HOW DO 4 WE WREST CONTROL OF JAVA AWAY FROM SUN? 5 ANSWER: I DON'T THINK THAT I WOULD HAVE PUT 6 IT THAT WAY. CERTAINLY, IT WAS AN ISSUE ABOUT 7 THE POPULARITY OF SUN'S RUNTIME API'S VERSUS OUR 8 RUNTIME API'S." 9 (PAUSE.) 10 "QUESTION: I TAKE IT YOU KNOW MR. SLIVKA? 11 ANSWER: UMM-HMM. 12 QUESTION: YOU'VE GOT TO ANSWER YES OR NO 13 AUDIBLY SO THE REPORTER CAN TAKE IT DOWN. 14 ANSWER: YES. 15 QUESTION: AND YOU BELIEVE HIM TO BE A 16 PERSON OF COMPETENCE AND INTEGRITY? 17 ANSWER: YES. 18 QUESTION: DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE 19 THAT HE WOULD HAVE MISSTATED WHAT YOU TOLD HIM 20 WHEN YOU MET WITH HIM LAST, BEFORE APRIL 14, 21 1997? 22 ANSWER: IN NO WAY DOES THIS PURPORT TO BE 23 A RESTATEMENT OF THINGS I SAID TO BEN SLIVKA. 24 QUESTION: WELL, MR. GATES, WHAT THIS 25 MEMORANDUM SAYS IS, QUOTE, WHEN I MET WITH YOU
71 1 LAST, YOU HAD A LOT OF PRETTY POINTED QUESTIONS 2 ABOUT JAVA, SO I WANT TO BE SURE I UNDERSTAND 3 YOUR ISSUES AND CONCERNS. HERE IS A START. CAN 4 YOU PLEASE ADD ANY THAT I'M MISSING? AND THEN HE 5 LISTS SIX, THE SECOND OF WHICH IS, `HOW DO WE 6 WREST CONTROL OF JAVA AWAY FROM SUN?' 7 YOU SEE THAT IN THE EXHIBIT, DO YOU NOT, 8 SIR? 9 ANSWER: UMM-HMM, YES." 10 "QUESTION: DID YOU HAVE PERSONALLY ANY 11 DISCUSSIONS WITH APPLE WITH REGARD TO TRYING TO 12 AGREE WITH APPLE AS TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH APPLE 13 AND MICROSOFT WOULD COMPETE WITH RESPECT TO 14 APPLE'S QUICKTIME SOFTWARE? 15 ANSWER: NO. 16 QUESTION: DO YOU KNOW IF ANYONE FROM 17 MICROSOFT HAD SUCH DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE AT
72 1 APPLE? 2 ANSWER: I KNOW OVER A COURSE OF YEARS WE'VE 3 TALKED TO THEM ABOUT WHAT THEIR PLANS ARE FOR 4 QUICKTIME, BUT THAT'S ALL. 5 QUESTION: DOES MICROSOFT HAVE SOFTWARE THAT 6 COMPETES WITH QUICKTIME? 7 ANSWER: SINCE QUICKTIME'S A FREE RUNTIME, 8 YOU CAN ANSWER THAT EITHER YES OR NO. IT'S NOT A 9 REVENUE SOURCE FOR APPLE. BUT THERE IS AN APPLE 10 TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS SOME COMMON THINGS WITH SOME 11 MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGIES. 12 QUESTION: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT QUICKTIME 13 SOFTWARE COMPETES WITH ANY SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTED 14 BY MICROSOFT? 15 MR. HEINER: OBJECTION. 16 THE WITNESS: DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN 17 COMPETE. 18 BY MR. BOIES: 19 QUESTION: USING THAT IN THE WAY THAT YOU 20 WOULD ORDINARILY UNDERSTAND IT IN THE OPERATION 21 OF YOUR BUSINESS, SIR. 22 ANSWER: NO. 23 QUESTION: DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT, OR DID 24 MICROSOFT MAKE ANY EFFORT, TO GET APPLE TO AGREE 25 NOT TO MARKET QUICKTIME IN ANY RESPECT, OR TO
73 1 LIMIT THE MARKETING OF QUICKTIME IN ANY RESPECT? 2 ANSWER: THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT 3 WHETHER WE COULD HELP THEM WITH THEIR QUICKTIME 4 GOALS AT VARIOUS POINTS IN TIME. AND, IN FACT, 5 THEY ENCOURAGED US TO DO SOMETHING WHERE WE'D 6 ACTUALLY, BY WORKING WITH THEM, MAKE QUICKTIME 7 EVEN MORE POPULAR THAN IT IS. 8 MR. BOIES: COULD YOU READ BACK MY QUESTION, 9 PLEASE. 10 (THE RECORD WAS READ AS FOLLOWS:) 11 QUESTION: DID YOU MAKE ANY EFFORT, OR DID 12 MICROSOFT MAKE ANY EFFORT, TO GET APPLE TO AGREE 13 NOT TO MARKET QUICKTIME IN ANY RESPECT, OR TO 14 LIMIT THE MARKETING OF QUICKTIME IN ANY RESPECT? 15 BY MR. BOIES: 16 QUESTION: CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION, 17 SIR? 18 MR. HEINER: OBJECTION. 19 THE WITNESS: I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT 20 IS DIRECTLY AIMED AS THOSE THINGS, NO. 21 BY MR. BOIES: 22 QUESTION: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT 23 WAS INDIRECTLY AIMED AT THOSE THINGS? 24 ANSWER: NO. 25 QUESTION: DID, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, ANY
74 1 REPRESENTATIVE OF MICROSOFT TRY TO CONVINCE APPLE 2 NOT TO SELL OR PROMOTE QUICKTIME FOR USES FOR 3 WHICH MICROSOFT PROMOTES THE USE OF NETSHOW? 4 ANSWER: THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 5 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RUNTIME CODE AND 6 WHETHER WE COULD WORK TOGETHER ON THE WINDOWS 7 SIDE OF THAT RUNTIME CODE THAT WOULD ENHANCE 8 THEIR GOALS AND OUR GOALS. 9 QUESTION: AND WAS THERE A DISCUSSION IN 10 THAT CONTEXT ABOUT APPLE AGREEING NOT TO SELL OR 11 PROMOTE QUICKTIME FOR USES THAT MICROSOFT WAS 12 PROMOTING NETSHOW TO FULFILL? 13 ANSWER: NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. 14 QUESTION: INSOFAR AS YOU'RE AWARE, DID 15 MICROSOFT REPRESENTATIVES TELL APPLE 16 REPRESENTATIVES THAT IF APPLE WOULD AGREE NOT TO 17 SELL OR PROMOTE QUICKTIME FOR USES FOR WHICH 18 MICROSOFT OFFERED NETSHOW, THAT MICROSOFT WOULD 19 HELP APPLE IN OTHER AREAS? 20 ANSWER: WELL, THE QUICK--AS FAR AS I KNOW, 21 THE QUICKTIME RUNTIME IS FREE. SO, WHEN YOU SAY 22 `SELL,' I DON'T KNOW--I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN 23 THERE. 24 QUESTION: I THINK I SAID SELL OR PROMOTE, I 25 CERTAINLY MEANT TO, BUT I WILL USE THE WORD
75 1 `DISTRIBUTE,' IF THAT WILL HELP. 2 ANSWER: I THINK THERE WAS A TECHNICAL 3 DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER A COMMON RUNTIME WAS 4 ACHIEVABLE WHICH WOULD HAVE ENHANCED THEIR 5 QUICKTIME GOALS. 6 QUESTION: WHEN YOU SAY `A COMMON RUNTIME,' 7 WOULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT. 8 ANSWER: I MEAN THAT THE WINDOWS MEDIA 9 PLAYER RUNTIME WOULD COMBINE TECHNOLOGY FROM THEM 10 AND FROM US THAT MET ALL OF THEIR GOALS FOR 11 QUICKTIME. 12 QUESTION: AND SO THERE WOULD BE A WINDOWS 13 MEDIA PLAYER THAT WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED, AND APPLE 14 WOULD STOP DISTRIBUTING QUICKTIME FOR PURPOSES 15 FOR WHICH THE WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER WAS 16 DISTRIBUTED; IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? 17 ANSWER: NO, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO STOP 18 ANYTHING. THERE WOULD JUST BE A NEW RUNTIME THAT 19 MIGHT INCORPORATE SOME OF THEIR TECHNOLOGY AND 20 HELP THEM WITH THEIR QUICKTIME GOALS. 21 QUESTION: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY THERE WOULD BE 22 A NEW PROGRAM THAT WOULD INCORPORATE OR MIGHT 23 INCORPORATE SOME OF THEIR TECHNOLOGY, WOULD THAT 24 RESULT IN THEM STOPPING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THEIR 25 EXISTING QUICKTIME TECHNOLOGY?
76 1 ANSWER: THERE'S NO REASON IT WOULD NEED TO. 2 QUESTION: WAS THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS? 3 ANSWER: I DON'T THINK SO, BUT AS I TOLD 4 YOU, I WASN'T PART OF ANY OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS. 5 QUESTION: WERE YOU AWARE OF THOSE 6 DISCUSSIONS WHILE THEY WERE GOING ON? 7 ANSWER: I KNEW THAT APPLE HAD A--HAD THE 8 QUICKTIME RUNTIME FOR WINDOWS. AND THERE WAS 9 ALWAYS A QUESTION OF WHETHER WE COULD CREATE A 10 WINDOWS RUNTIME THAT COMBINED WHAT THEIR GOALS 11 WERE THERE AND WHAT THEY HAD DONE WELL THERE FOR 12 THE WORK WE WERE DOING. AND I KNOW WE TALKED TO 13 APPLE ABOUT WHETHER WE COULD HELP EACH OTHER IN 14 AN EFFORT LIKE THAT. 15 QUESTION: WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HELPING EACH 16 OTHER, WOULD THAT RESULT IN A SINGLE PRODUCT THAT 17 WOULD THEN BE DISTRIBUTED IN PLACE OF BOTH 18 QUICKTIME AND NETSHOW? 19 ANSWER: NO. PEOPLE COULD STILL DISTRIBUTE 20 THEIR OLD THINGS, BUT IF YOU CREATE A NEW THING 21 THAT'S BETTER, IT MIGHT--SOME PEOPLE MIGHT USE 22 IT. 23 QUESTION: WELL, WAS THE PURPOSE OF CREATING 24 THE NEW WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER THAT YOU REFERRED 25 TO, TO OBSOLETE QUICKTIME?
77 1 ANSWER: WHATEVER FUNCTIONALITY QUICKTIME 2 HAD PREVIOUSLY WOULD BE UNAFFECTED BY ANY SUCH 3 EFFORT. 4 QUESTION: THAT REALLY WASN'T MY QUESTION, 5 MR. GATES. MAYBE I CAN STATE IT MORE CLEARLY. 6 DID MICROSOFT TRY TO CONVINCE APPLE TO TAKE 7 ACTIONS WHICH WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN APPLE NO 8 LONGER DISTRIBUTING QUICKTIME TO PEOPLE TO WHOM 9 MICROSOFT WAS DISTRIBUTING NETSHOW OR A SUCCESSOR 10 MICROSOFT PRODUCT? 11 ANSWER: I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT 12 WOULD HAVE STOPPED THEM FROM DISTRIBUTING THE 13 QUICKTIME THEY HAD, BUT IT WAS POSSIBLE WE COULD 14 COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO 15 BOTH COMPANIES IN TERMS OF A PRODUCT THAT TOOK 16 SOME OF THEIR TECHNOLOGY AND OURS AND WAS BETTER 17 FOR USERS. 18 QUESTION: DID MICROSOFT OFFER TO HAVE APPLE 19 CONTINUE TO OFFER A MULTIMEDIA PLAYER FOR THE MAC 20 PLATFORM AND TO ASSIST APPLE IN THAT IF APPLE 21 WOULD AGREE NOT TO DISTRIBUTE THAT MULTIMEDIA 22 PLAYER FOR THE WINDOWS PLATFORM? 23 ANSWER: AS I SAID, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS 24 ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT NOT DISTRIBUTING SOME OLD 25 THING, BUT, RATHER, A QUESTION WAS COULD
78 1 SOMETHING NEW BE CREATED WHICH WOULD BE BETTER 2 FOR BOTH COMPANIES. 3 QUESTION: WAS THE IDEA THAT ONCE THIS NEW 4 THING WAS CREATED, THE OLD THING THAT APPLE WAS 5 DISTRIBUTING WOULD NO LONGER BE DISTRIBUTED BY 6 APPLE? 7 ANSWER: AS I SAID, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS 8 PART OF THE DISCUSSION. 9 QUESTION: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TOLD ANYTHING, 10 OR HAVE YOU READ ANYTHING, ABOUT ANY CONTENTION 11 THAT APPLE MAY OR MAY NOT MAKE CONCERNING THESE 12 DISCUSSIONS? 13 ANSWER: NO." 14 (PAUSE.) 15 "QUESTION: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY ASSERTIONS 16 BY APPLE REPRESENTATIVES THAT MICROSOFT 17 REPRESENTATIVES TRIED TO GET THEM TO AGREE TO 18 DIVIDE THE MARKET? 19 ANSWER: NO. 20 QUESTION: NO ONE HAS EVER TOLD YOU THAT? 21 ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT. 22 QUESTION: AND YOU'VE NEVER HEARD THAT FROM 23 ANY SOURCE? 24 ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT. 25 QUESTION: DO I TAKE IT FROM WHAT YOU SAID
79 1 YESTERDAY THAT IF, IN FACT, MICROSOFT 2 REPRESENTATIVES HAD ATTEMPTED TO GET APPLE 3 REPRESENTATIVES TO PARTICIPATE IN A MARKET 4 DIVISION, THAT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO MICROSOFT 5 POLICY? 6 MR. HEINER: OBJECTION. 7 THE WITNESS: THAT'S RIGHT. 8 BY MR. BOIES: 9 QUESTION: AND I TAKE IT THAT IF YOU FOUND 10 OUT THAT PEOPLE HAD DONE THAT CONTRARY TO 11 MICROSOFT'S POLICY, THEY WOULD BE APPROPRIATELY 12 DEALT WITH? 13 ANSWER: YES. 14 QUESTION: ARE YOU A REGULAR READER OF THE 15 WALL STREET JOURNAL? 16 ANSWER: SOME DAYS I READ THE WALL STREET 17 JOURNAL. 18 QUESTION: ARE YOU AWARE OF A WALL STREET 19 JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT DISCUSSES ASSERTIONS BY 20 APPLE CONCERNING ALLEGED EFFORTS BY MICROSOFT TO 21 GET APPLE TO AGREE TO DIVIDE MARKETS? 22 ANSWER: NO. 23 QUESTION: LET ME JUST REFER YOU TO A WALL 24 STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE OF JULY 23, 1998, ENTITLED 25 `U.S. PROBING MICROSOFT'S MULTIMEDIA ROLE.'
80 1 DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO 2 WHETHER YOU EVER SAW A--A WALL STREET JOURNAL 3 ARTICLE ABOUT ALLEGED MARKET DIVISION ATTEMPTS 4 BETWEEN MICROSOFT AND APPLE? 5 MR. HEINER: DO YOU WANT TO SHOW US THE 6 ARTICLE? 7 MR. BOIES: I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO SHOWING 8 IT. AND I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO MARKING IT. 9 MR. HEINER: I DON'T CARE IF IT'S MARKED OR 10 NOT. 11 MR. BOIES: MY PURPOSE IS JUST TO TRY TO 12 REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION TO SEE WHETHER HE 13 RECALLS HAVING EVER SEEN THIS. 14 THE WITNESS: NO."

Well, part 5 of the Bill Gates deposition tapes will be published tomorrow. The body language is also relevant, not to mention the awkward pauses text fails to convey. Part 5 is about 2 hours long.

Happy 35th Birthday, FSF

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF at 5:11 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Equipment

Summary: Dating or going back to the days of cassette tapes and gramophones, the FSF turns 35 today (Sunday) and it plans an online party

THE GNU Operating System (a copyleft OS) turned 37 a few days ago. Today, or just over an hour ago, the FSF said it had turned 35 and there’s this 35th anniversary event. In the FSF’s own words: “Today, on October 4th, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) celebrates its thirty-fifth year of fighting for software freedom…”

“…Richard Stallman, the FSF’s founder (and its long-running chief until last year), wants people to celebrate along with the FSF and generally support the FSF.”“Online and via IRC in #fsf (on Freenode),” the FSF said, “[w]e will end in an online anniversary event featuring both live and prerecorded segments this Friday, October 9th, from 12:00 EDT (16:00 UTC) until 17:00 EDT (21:00 UTC).”

Techrights has been on Freenode since 2008. We’re turning 14 a month from now. But today is the FSF’s day to celebrate and Richard Stallman, the FSF’s founder (and its long-running chief until last year), wants people to celebrate along with the FSF and generally support the FSF.

Long live, FSF. We’re still supportive, even if we nitpick every now and then. Nobody and nothing can be perfect all the time. Last year’s blunder was one example of that.

Links 4/10/2020: Nanonote 1.3.0, Magisk 21.0, GNU Operating System at Age 37

Posted in News Roundup at 2:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

  • Leftovers

    • Vice Media Names First Global CMO: Marketing Veteran Nadja Bellan-White (EXCLUSIVE)

      Bellan-White, previously based in the U.K., will work from Vice’s Brooklyn headquarters and will report to CEO Nancy Dubuc. She starts at the end of October.

      With Bellan-White’s appointment, current Vice Media CMO Guy Slattery is leaving the company after nearly five years.

    • Hardware

      • A thought about the lifetimes of hard disks and solid state disks

        Some grumpy sysadmins will also consider it a feature that if you put a system in a closet and leave it there for five or ten years, it will probably die instead of hanging around as an ancient zombie full of outdated things. The downside of this is for ‘industrial’ computers that are embedded into larger systems (including in things like hospital machinery, which are infamous for still running their embedded computers with long-obsolete operating systems). Perhaps the hardware vendors will just vastly over-provision the SSDs and then hope for the best.

      • DT71 smart tweezers review – 3-in-1 tweezers, multimeter, and signal generator

        Earlier this year, I discovered a new (to me) category of devices that look useful for electronics projects with smart tweezers Colibri ST-5S that integrate an LCR meter and can help quickly identify SMD components. I also noted some cheaper, but bulky models selling on Aliexpress for $15 and up.

    • Health/Nutrition

    • Integrity/Availability

      • Proprietary

        • Security

          • Privacy/Surveillance

            • Malicious Tor relays – post-analysis after two months

              As far as I can see, nothing will change/be implemented in the near future at the Torproject or Tor directory authority level.

            • Facebook Slams Netflix’s ‘The Social Dilemma’ as ‘Distorted’ and Sensationalist

              The social-media giant released a seven-point rebuttal Friday to the Netflix film, from director Jeff Orlowski, which debuted Sept. 9.

            • Former Chinese Diplomat Worked on TikTok Content Policy, FT Says

              A former Chinese government official decided what content should be allowed on TikTok, the Financial Times reported, citing two people close to the short-video app company.

            • A shameful security flaw could have let anyone access your Grindr account

              You would think a dating app that knows your sexuality and HIV status would take thorough precautions to keep that info protected, but Grindr has disappointed the world once again — this time, with a gobsmackingly egregious security vulnerability that could have let literally anyone who could guess your email address into your user account.

            • When you are a lawyer, what is confidential about a confidential settlement? [Ed: Lawyers talking about things being "confidential" when they don't even bother with encryption and don't know how to use any. If they become politicians, they pass laws that BAN encryption, giving massive powers to state thugs and oligarchy.]

              In the case of LVM Law Chambers LLC v Wan Hoe Keet [2020] SGCA 29, the court was asked whether it was proper for a law firm to act against the same counterparty in which earlier proceedings against that party had been resolved by a settlement agreement subject to confidentiality.

              The facts of the case are straightforward. The appellant had previously acted on behalf of a client who claimed to be a victim of the respondent’s Ponzi scheme. In that earlier case, the appellant concluded a settlement before trial and the case was dropped. When the appellant attempted to act against the respondent again on behalf of another client who also claimed to be a victim of the scheme, the respondents sought an injunction refraining them from doing so, arguing that the appellant was privy to confidential information which could be used to the respondents’ detriment.

              The court, both on first instance and on appeal, agreed that the appellant should be restrained from disclosing the terms of the settlement agreement. However, the appellate court declined to enjoin the law firm from acting in the subsequent case.

    • Defence/Aggression

    • Transparency/Investigative Reporting

      • Following Falsehoods: A Reporter’s Approach on QAnon

        The normie tipping point is a joke, but it speaks to one of the thorniest questions in modern journalism, specifically on this beat: When does the benefit of informing people about an emerging piece of misinformation outweigh the possible harms? It’s a hard balance to strike, and a judgment call every time. Give too much attention to a fringe conspiracy theory before it’s gone viral, and you might inadvertently end up amplifying it. Wait too long, and you allow it to spread to millions of people with no factual counterweight.

        With QAnon, it became clear to me earlier this year that we’d reached the normie tipping point. I was lurking in QAnon Facebook groups and watched them swell to hundreds of thousands of members. I was hearing from readers whose parents, friends and siblings had disappeared into an online QAnon bubble. The movement’s followers were committing real acts of violence and vandalism, and spreading dangerous misinformation about Covid-19.

    • Environment

      • US bans Malaysian palm oil producer over labor abuses

        Malaysian palm oil producer FGV Holdings Berhad vowed Thursday to “clear its name” after the United States banned imports of its palm oil over allegations of forced labor and other abuses.

        The U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Trade issued the ban order against FGV on Wednesday, saying it found indicators of forced labor, including concerns about children, along with other abuses such as physical and sexual violence.

        The action, announced a week after The Associated Press exposed major labor abuses in Malaysia’s palm oil industry, was triggered by a petition filed last year by nonprofit organizations.

      • Energy

        • Huge Machine Captures Energy From Ocean Waves

          AW-Energy hopes to plop its WaveRoller into the ocean next year, according to Greentech Media. Joining it are other companies like Sweden’s CorPower Ocean, which hopes to have wave energy generators operating by 2024.

          It’s an encouraging sign for the future of clean energy. But the industry will still face challenges, even against other renewables like solar and wind, which continue to drop in price.

    • Finance

      • Of the Rich, By the Rich, For the Rich

        “Our current situation is hardly novel, it is just the continuation of an unjust system built on a document of objective lies. ‘All men’ should have been replaced by ‘some rich white men’ and everything would have been a lot clearer.”

      • ILO: 34 million jobs lost by the COVID-19 crisis in Latin America and the Caribbean

        At least 34 million jobs in Latin America and the Caribbean have been lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report from the International Labour Organization.

        Countries need to adopt immediate strategies to address the labour crisis, which, the report says, could widen existing inequalities in the region.

        “We face an unprecedented challenge, that of rebuilding the region’s labour markets, which implies facing structural failures that have worsened with the pandemic, such as low productivity, high informality, and inequality of income and opportunities of decent work,” said Vinícius Pinheiro, Director of the ILO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean.

        The second edition of the Labour Overview in times of COVID-19: Impacts on the labour market and income in Latin America and the Caribbean warns of “the drastic contraction of employment, hours worked and income.”

        It says that during this crisis “34 million workers lost their jobs (some temporarily)”, according to available information from nine countries that represent more than 80 per cent of the economically active population of the region. The employment rate reached 51.1 per cent in the first quarter, a reduction of 5.4 percentage points compared to the data for the same period of the previous year, which represents “a historical minimum value.”

      • California wavers on theme park opening rules amid pressure

        Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday delayed new operating rules for theme parks such as Disneyland that have been closed since the beginning of the pandemic as tourism industry officials warned the state was set to lose more than $78 billion in travel related spending this year.

      • From Trump’s taxes to virus: News moves at breakneck pace

        Remember the presidential debate? The revelation about how much President Donald Trump pays in taxes? The nomination of a new U.S. Supreme Court justice?

        They all happened within the past week. Then, just as quickly, they receded into memory with the revelation Friday that Trump had tested positive for COVID-19. News, substantial news, is rushing by at the speed of light.

        Memory more than full.

        “I don’t know how many writers who were working on political melodramas have just deleted their files and opened up a bottle of Scotch,” said veteran journalist Jeff Greenfield.

    • AstroTurf/Lobbying/Politics

    • Freedom of Information/Freedom of the Press

      • FBI Seized Legally Privileged Materials From Julian Assange After Arrest In Ecuador Embassy

        The FBI in the United Kingdom enlisted the Ecuador government’s help in seizing legally privileged materials from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange after he was arrested and expelled from their embassy in London on April 11, 2019.According to Gareth Peirce, one of Assange’s attorneys, that day she “made immediate contact with the embassy in regard to legally privileged material, an issue of huge concern.” Assange wanted the material—in addition to “confidential medical data”—”identified and released to his lawyers.”“Repeated requests by telephone, email and recorded delivery mail were entirely ignored by the embassy,” and in testimony submitted during the final day of evidence in Assange’s extradition trial, the embassy has never responded.“One record of [Assange’s] entire archive” was effectively purloined, and without it, Peirce mentioned it has made putting together a defense in his extradition case more difficult because the initial allegations relate to communications, meetings, and events from 2010 and 2011.

        Proceedings in the evidentiary portion of Assange’s extradition trial concluded on October 1, and Judge Vanessa Baraitser announced she would rule on the request from the United States government on January 4, 2021.

      • Press Freedom Is Threatened by Biden and Trump; Julian Assange Must Be Freed

        The extradition hearing of Julian Assange in the United Kingdom concluded testimony this week and now awaits a decision by Judge Vanessa Baraitser. During the past four weeks, it became increasingly clear the United States does not have a valid case and the conditions warranting extradition were not met. It is also clear that were Julian Assange to be extradited to the United States, he would be punished severely and this would dramatically change the willingness of journalists and publishers around the world to do their job of informing the public about what governments are doing.

        Julian Assange must be freed for many reasons, not the least of which is that his right to a fair trial was denied. The hearing was opened with a request from the defense team for a delay until January because they had not been able to meet with Assange to provide information to him for his input and to prepare. They stated that Assange is the expert in this situation and they relied on his guidance. Defense further stated that new information was given to them without adequate time to review it. The judge denied the request and further restricted Assange’s participation by forcing him to sit in a glass box where he was isolated from his lawyers.

        During the hearing, in what was a harsh and restrictive environment where the US prosecutors bullied and maligned defense witnesses, the defense was able to establish that no crime was committed, that the case was purely political and that if extradited, Assange’s health and safety would be at risk.

        In creating Wikileaks and publishing information, Julian Assange was engaged in “journalistic behavior,” which is protected by the First Amendment that establishes freedom of the press. Assange did what every good investigative journalist does in seeking truthful information from sources. Many media outlets routinely provide tools for people to leak information and classified information is given to reporters regularly. Investigative journalists regularly press their sources for more information. This is part of the job and necessary for respecting the right of the public to be informed.

    • Civil Rights/Policing

      • Khashoggi’s Plan for Rights Group Realized

        Now, two years after his death at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, friends of Khashoggi have realized the journalist’s dream for a rights organization that holds Middle East governments to account and gives exiled journalists and activists a platform to speak openly about abuses.

        Khashoggi came up with the idea for Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) in June 2018, a few months before his death. At a press conference Tuesday, members of the group emphasized the need for human rights protections in the Middle East and North Africa, and laid out plans to track abuses in the region.

        The organization will initially focus on governments that are allied to the United States — Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates — and will document how governments persecute dissenters and human rights advocates, DAWN’s executive director, Sarah Leah Whitson, said.

      • Louisville and beyond: Calls for reform on ‘no-knock’ police raids

        The use of “no-knock” or “knock-and-announce” warrants is legal but risky. While there’s no clear data, American police carry out 40,000 to 50,000 no-knock raids each year by some estimates.

        As the Breonna Taylor case in Louisville shows, one result can be tragic deaths in a country with both expansive gun rights and expansive police authority. These incidents – a real-time real-time clash over Second and Fourth Amendment rights – often leave no clear heroes or villains. Law enforcement and legislatures nationwide are now wondering whether gun rights can safely coexist with no-knock raids.

    • Digital Restrictions (DRM)

      • How to watch the MLB playoffs without cable

        If you have an over-the-air antenna and live within reach of your local Fox TV affiliate, you can catch the action without spending another dime when game 7 of the World Series starts at 8:08 p.m. Eastern time. Don’t live within range of your local Fox affiliate’s broadcast tower? No worries, you still have plenty of options.

    • Monopolies

      • Patents

        • Software Patents

          • UK High Court Denies DABUS Appeal

            On Monday 21 September, the UK High Court (Patents) delivered its judgment on the DABUS appeal, as previously reported here by Morgan Lewis.

      • Copyrights

        • Bond was the last straw: Regal and Cineworld will reportedly close all theaters in US and UK next week

          Variety reports that all 543 theaters in the US will be closed, which account for the chain’s 7,000+ screens in the region. The Sunday Times reports that it will close all 128 theaters in the UK and Ireland, too.

        • Megaupload Lawsuits Remain on Hold Until 2021, Or (Much) Later

          Nearly nine years after Megaupload was taken down, the lawsuits against the site and its founder Kim Dotcom are still pending. The criminal case in the US awaits the outcome of the New Zealand extradition process, and two civil cases filed by major record labels and movie companies will start even later. This week they were put on hold until April 2021, but they will likely start much later.

        • New Law Requires Google & Apple to Remove Pirate Apps or Face ISP Blocking

          Google, Apple and other Internet platforms that offer copyright-infringing movie, TV show and music apps, face the possibility of being blocked by ISPs in Russia after a new law came into effect this week. The draconian measure will only come into play if sites offering pirate apps fail to quickly comply with copyright complaints filed by local telecoms watchdog Roscomnadzor.

(Software) Freedom or Bust

Posted in Free/Libre Software at 9:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Shoes on string outside a window

Summary: Join us now and share the software

THE SHOES at the Windows

The worms in the Apple
The spook in the wild forest
The farce in the book

“Software freedom isn’t a cliché”Not sure what it’s all about? Then “Google it!”
No results found
Too bad, try again
Better luck next time!

Software freedom isn’t a cliché
Privacy should not be a luxury
As privacy for a normal (ordinary) person decreases, argued Edwards Snowden, it increases for others (it’s not loss of privacy but a shift of who gets it whilst enjoying no accountability)

A user either controls the program, or the program controls the user
Such is the real balance in computing
Not a choice of brands
Not a selection of a listening device to suit one’s self-image or lifestyle

Give us freedom, software freedom
Join us now and share the software

Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS) is Still Monitoring the Attacks on Software Freedom

Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, OSI at 9:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Watching without saying much, for now

Eye in the dark

Summary: Richard Stallman (RMS) is exploring new ways to deal with new threats to software freedom, even if it’s done mostly behind the scenes (dodging those hyenas who defamed him ‘out of office’ at MIT)

THE push to oust RMS was incomplete and therefore unsuccessful. He’s still the undisputed chief of the GNU Project, which he started nearly 40 years ago (he turns 68 next year and in recent interviews he looks healthy and lucid in the fluency/articulative sense, i.e. both physically and mentally).

“RMS and Bruce Perens are talking again. I heard about it earlier today.”As he put it less than a year ago, he had been hit but not knocked out. People close to him say he’s just waiting for the right moment to make a comeback.

The wheels or the gears are already in motion. 10 months ago Bruce Perens quit OSI in protest and a couple of months ago he laid out some sound reasons. OSI did not develop in the way he had hoped for.

RMS and Bruce Perens are talking again. I heard about it earlier today. They used to talk a lot back in the mid-nineties, based on the Debian-Private archives that we released. Perens had received a lot of abuse for trying to be in amicable relations/terms with RMS. Not fair to him…

The nature of the discussion is private, but it seems like both geeks want to shape the world after the “open source” thing (openwashing of monopolies, surveillance etc.) became the sham RMS warned it would become, monetised by the Linux Foundation (milking the “Linux” brand) and the OSI, which nowadays equates GitHub with "Open Source" (the very thing GitHub is against, as per Microsoft's old plan).

figosdev corrected the meme I had made yesterday, rephrasing it as follows because quite a few GNU projects too were migrated to Microsoft’s GitHub. He sent me the following image:

GitHub and FS

It’s unclear if RMS can do anything on this matter. He already openly condemned the practice (long before GitHub became Microsoft’s) and the FSF gave GitHub an “F” (worst possible score) when it last assessed the platform 4.5 years ago. Rather ironic given that the successor of RMS at the FSF is a GitHub user (albeit it’s never too late to correct that).

Free software will be fine provided enough of us work together to make that happen. Back in the 1980s people thought RMS was crazy for thinking he would manage to take over and replace ‘Goliath’. But guess what… the future depends on collective action at present. Keep up the fight.

First they ignore you,

then they ridicule you,

then they fight you, ← ← ← you are here

then you win.

On the Internet, Nobody Knows You’re a Dog Until You Bark

Posted in Deception at 8:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

As the old adage goes

Way to the office

As the famous adage (or cartoon) goes, trolls on the Internet have a very fertile platform. Corporate shills can 'cancel' opponents (of the employer) without even fact-checking being an obstacle. This is a real (and likely growing) problem. We’ve almost lost Richard Stallman, Alex Oliva was next in line (the ‘firing line’ of that same troll), and recently I saw similar tactics used against myself in Twitter, e.g. [1, 2].

“Maybe the main “shithole” is the Internet, where nowadays there seem to be more falsehoods than facts. These falsehoods help spread disease, perpetuate global warming, and start unnecessary wars.”It starts with a deliberate distortion of someone’s views (or fabrication, the manufacturing of fake evidence), people then get angry and this anger is redirected or weaponised towards some goal (the ‘cancel’ in the term ‘cancel culture’). It can be a firing, dissociation, self-shame, de-platforming, or self-censorship akin to de-platforming (same net effect). Here’s the ‘incident’ which led me to no longer be active in Twitter, except passively (posting mere copies there by exporting from JoinDiaspora):

Cancel site

The context of this was, it was falsely claimed that I had said SJVN was against Linux (obviously untrue); what I actually said was, SJVN is employed by a Linux-hostile company (and became somewhat of a Microsoft apologist). He himself complained about ZDNet‘s anti-Linux FUD.

But who cares about facts anyway?

Right?

The trolls are constantly watching, monitoring their target’s words, looking to take something out of context and then rally a social control media mob against that target.

Meerkat

Wait, watch, react, create a lynching-happy mob and wait for it to ‘trend’ or ‘go viral’; this is how Julian Assange was turned from hero to villain and Stallman was framed as a tactless heretic who dislikes women. Evidence to support that? Total fabrication for the most part, as well as distorted words, taken out of context or deliberately rephrased to lie about his position. And yes, SJVN participated in that. He never issued a correction, so we know that ZDNet is about as credible as worthless 'tweets'.

A certain “shithole” President referred to poor countries as “shitholes” (arguably an incredibly racist statement for anyone to make) and he nowadays 'runs' (or commands) Twitter, swiftly shifting attention from a dead Justice (soon to be replaced by an inexperienced cult activist?) and a major tax scam to his medical diagnosis. The poor thing… you cannot wish for his death the way many of his followers publicly wished for the death of this Justice, diagnosed with cancer — a condition never publicly denied and downplayed (to the detriment of 215,000 dead Americans).

Maybe the main “shithole” is the Internet, where nowadays there seem to be more falsehoods than facts. These falsehoods help spread disease, perpetuate global warming, and start unnecessary wars. Literal wars, not just cultural ‘cancel culture’ flamewars (where casualties may lose a job, not their lives, albeit suicide may ensue).

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts