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


The Different Types of Spammy ‘Articles’ and ‘Reviews’ Which Have Killed ‘Professional Journalism’ (Nowadays Mostly SPAM)

Posted in Deception at 11:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Betanews SPAM
New example of ‘spamview’ (marketing SPAM disguised as “review” from Beta ‘News’), complete with googlebombing of “Linux” (this comes with Windows, not GNU/Linux)

Minisforum EliteMini

Summary: The media has become so rogue that a lot of it is merely an extension of the marketing/PR industry; unless this is corrected, online publishers will fail to earn or maintain any degree of trust

THE Web is littered or polluted with stuff that’s optimised for money, not for information, so any kind of Web search is likely to yield something that’s not what the title (or headline) claims. Here are just 3 common scenarios (for pages presented as “news” or “reports”):

  1. A product ‘review’ which is actually product promotion, sometimes complete with ‘test unit’ as a bribe (Microsoft does a lot of that)
  2. A survey or review of products which is actually just a catalogue with specially crafted links (typically Amazon or similar online stores) for revenue by referral
  3. An ‘article’ which is ghostwritten or partly prepared by a PR firm hired by the company that it’s all about

“It’s hardly surprising that many people no longer trust the media (for news, reviews, analysis and so on). It’s hard to blame them. Because the underlying presumption is correct.”Every day I receive some spammy E-mail trying to lure me into the third (of the above). The (1) above is also attempted sometimes, but less frequently. IBM attempted (3) several times over the years, e.g. in 2011 and earlier this year (Dell did the same months ago). Many GNU/Linux ‘news’ sites have sadly become mostly or partly (2), so in effect they’re full-time or part-time marketing SPAM sites.

It’s hardly surprising that many people no longer trust the media (for news, reviews, analysis and so on). It’s hard to blame them. Because the underlying presumption is correct. Publishers are, with rare exceptions, in it for the money. Those that aren’t eventually perish as they aren’t sufficiently well funded. Economic downturns make that only worse.

When the Software — and by Extension Hardware and Network — Controls the User…

Posted in Free/Libre Software at 10:33 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related: How Social Control Media Works: The Case of Twitter, Visualised and Annotated

Woman's distraction
“If you focus your mind on the freedom and community that you can build by staying firm, you will find the strength to do it.” -Richard M. Stallman

Summary: A distraction-free workflow is more likely to be attained using Free software than without it; in a world with information overload and ‘surveillance capitalism’ people need to carefully rethink what they do (or have done to them) digitally

SINCE COVID-19 lock-downs started we’ve published about 300 posts per month, on average. Productivity wasn’t solely owing to having to remain (mostly) home; it has continued since (for months after reopening). Back in 2004 I wrote some tips and last year I wrote some notes about how to handle not only E-mail but also social control media in an efficient fashion. Over a decade ago I tried to abandon E-mail altogether (in vain, not only because E-mail accounts are needed for many things, including the most basic public services), so let’s assume that’s a “necessary” evil; social control media is not and therefore we lack presence there (Techrights has no account in such sites, not even the “open” or “free” or “decentralised” ones). The truth of the matter is, those things are a distraction for the most part. And sure, some people actively seek distraction and may in fact enjoy it. When we say it’s a “distraction” what we mean in the context of publishing is that the nature of feedback (in such platforms) is relatively shallow and is quite often off-topic. It rarely contributes to future work in any meaningful or measurable way. What’s more, stuff like “shares” and “likes” is rather meaningless. It was rather pointless all along, but this was popularised about a decade and a half ago when sites like “Digg” (Digg.com) took shape. Many of these rankings were superficial at best; in fact, I still recall how — back when I was ranked 17th in the whole of Digg — those of us who had high-profile accounts were vastly more likely to have their submissions promoted to the front page. It wasn’t about accuracy or merit; it was mostly about connections in the subscriber/follower sense. We still see the same in sites like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. The number of “likes” typically says more about access to people than about objective merit. GitHub is another ludicrous one and the founder of Docker recently bashed the idea that projects can be assessed based on the number of “stars” (whose? Microsoft’s?).

Cat's distractionThe “distracted cat” on the right (first introduced here last year) is rather fortunate. This cat doesn’t have “notifications”. This cat is more likely a form of “positive distraction” to its so-called ‘owner’, who occasionally wishes to get away from work and various strains in life.

“Free software — not to be conflated with Open Source (effectively an attack on or a distraction from software freedom) — generally rejects many of the things above.”One of the biggest challenges for us (here in Techrights, collectively) is coming up with topics and issues worth tackling, as well as how to tackle them. Many stories are stimulated or ‘instigated’ by a discussion or deep thinking. Many come from sources and contributors, either permanent or errand. Sometimes we name the contributors, sometimes we do not (preserving anonymity when it is needed and/or desirable). But without focus on what matters it won’t be possible. Ads distract (they’re designed to accomplish just that), Clown Computing is optimised to sell more and more proprietary software (how often does one have access to the source code or can self-host the same?), and social control media has only one goal: maximise so-called ‘user’ ‘engagement’ (i.e. keep people scrolling endlessly, manipulated by what the platform’s owner promotes or does not censor/demote/throttle/shadowban).

Being a computer user isn’t easy these days. Many aren’t users but “useds” as Richard Stallman calls them. They’re being used. As they walk around with so-called ‘smart’ ‘phones’ they’re watched by state and corporate nannies, some even wear a bunch of supposedly ‘smart’ gear to track vital signals/signs like pulse (broadcasting that ‘upstream’ to insurance companies through “data brokers”).

But getting back to the point of distraction or contrariwise focus — what is it that compels people to surround themselves with ‘signal pollution’? Like so-called ‘phones’ that vibrate or make sounds hundreds of times per day (sometimes just to indicate something negligible like a so-called ‘friend’ posting a breakfast photo, i.e. dreary photograph of some food item, or pressing a “like” button)? Why have many people of all ages become so morbidly addicted to things that are so superficial… or lifestyles that are abundantly shallow?

Free software — not to be conflated with Open Source (effectively an attack on or a distraction from software freedom) — generally rejects many of the things above. Even so-called ‘phones’ that aren’t “smart” track the user (or used) everywhere s/he goes. The older phones (more than a decade old) may not have notifications for random breakfast photographs posted in Facebook; but they have SMS, which is typically not free of charge and therefore not overly abundant (people only send these when there’s something important to say, usually with a single recipient).

Recently we’ve been writing a bunch of articles about privacy aspects of Free software; behind those articles there’s a much more detailed private discussion (well, it’s not entirely private if one follows our Wiki and IRC channels). We’re working to discourage privacy violations from becoming “acceptable” in the Free software world and the whole tendency to adopt some of the worst aspects of technology — including social control media — has also been a priority. Microsoft moles inside the Linux Foundation are hoping to pull Linux development out of (high signal-to-noise ratio) E-mail workflow and into Microsoft's proprietary GitHub, complete with low-quality “PRs” and abundant nonsense like “stars” (trying to turn software development into a ‘popularity contest’, presumably to impress Microsoft by handing over to them lots of code, giving them monopoly power through the network effect). If you’re a Linux developer, the last thing you need is a notification bar with names of people and “likes” (or “stars”). How can one focus on high-quality patches when the whole thing gets reduced to that? Linus Torvalds has publicly complained about the sorts of practices that GitHub encourages and the FSF/GNU Project gave GitHub the lowest possible rating. Here it is:

GNU on repos

Writing code is a unique sort of activity that requires deep thinking and concentration. Whether it’s testing/debugging or the actual writing of bug-free code, the mind must focus on the flow of instructions as well as potential caveats (edge cases included). Anything that gets in the way (like notifications) can only possibly harm the quality of the code. To a certain extent the same is true for writing (text), but a bug in text would typically be a typo or grammatical error, not causing a crash (loss of work) or a security flaw (loss of control).

Those in society who wish to live a happy and productive life would be better off opting out of — or altogether rejecting — proprietary software, social control media, Clown Computing and so on. All those things are designed to give other people control not just over your life but over your mind. Your wallet too, of course… but freedom is more important than economic aspects (albeit financial strain can impede freedom).

The corporate media would likely dismiss people who reject so-called ‘phones’ and pay with cash (or use Free software exclusively), characterising them as ‘dumb’ (not ‘smart’), ‘backwards’, primitive’, ‘paranoid’ and potential criminals. But those who live their lives to appease or satisfy corporate media owners are trying to impress those least deserving of it. They want to dominate everything, minds included, using “screen time” with ads and brainwash. It’s a two-way feedback loop. Unlike TV (broadcast), they present people with something and then judge the reaction to something, iteratively building models of people’s thinking (to make them simpler to manipulate in the future or classify them for mistreatment). Suddenly, distraction alone isn’t the greatest threat that we as a society face.

What the Linux Foundation Teaches People About GNU/Linux in LinuxFoundationX (edX) LFS101x “Introduction to Linux” [sic]

Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Kernel at 8:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Last night: LinuxFoundationX (edX) LFS101x “Introduction to Linux” is More Linux Foundation Marketing and ‘Linux’ Revisionism Than Actual Training/Teaching

Professional like GNU

GCC and Linux

Linux history

Linux and GNU

Linux no 1980s

Linux philosophy

LF on religion

LF community

Summary: Some annotated screenshots of preliminary sections of LFS101x, a ‘course’ designed to indoctrinate people for the Linux Foundation and the project is borrows its name from (but whose trademark it does not control)

Shut Up and Learn to Maintain an Application Suite

Posted in Free/Libre Software, Google, Humour, Microsoft at 7:53 pm by Guest Editorial Team

Article by YOU Can Call Me “Mr. Developer” Actually, You Can Call Me “SIR Mr. Developer”

Summary: “Try and maintain a complex piece of software like a browser or an office suite, and then you’ll understand.”

Ah, the good old days… People used to complain, and we would tell them to stop snivelling and learn to code.

Now they pretend that even Free Software can do unethical things. Where do they get these ridiculous ideas?

Free Software can’t be unethical. You can always change the code, so PLEASE stop whinging about how it “spies” on you or got your dog pregnant — we seriously don’t care. We are just volunteers.

I know there was this guy — Shopman? Schtolman? Wait, Torvalds! He used to talk about something like this, but seriously, who codes in a bathrobe?

Google Street View logs WiFi networks, Mac addressesYou never hear Greg talking about that kind of nonsense. I mean, he’s too busy coding (and putting on some clothes first.)

But the rest of you, for crying out loud — just because “stuff happens” on your side and we get “data” about it on our side, doesn’t make it “spyware” — we aren’t spies. As I said, we are just volunteers.

You don’t understand ethics because you probably don’t write any code. I mean you say you do, you even showed us your GitHub repo, but you certainly haven’t written any code for us, so we don’t expect you to understand.

I don’t mean anything by it, you know — when I laughed at you on Twitter, I didn’t say you were “crazy” or “stupid”, just LOL. If we can’t laugh, that’s a serious problem. Then again, so is all this (frankly, very uninformed) whinging.

“But the rest of you, for crying out loud — just because “stuff happens” on your side and we get “data” about it on our side, doesn’t make it “spyware” — we aren’t spies. As I said, we are just volunteers.”Sometimes we sell data to Google. It’s not YOUR data, it’s OUR data. We’re the ones who found it. Yes, we wrote code for your browser to send it to us.

You can turn it off, you know. Just go to about:config and click “Yes I’m sure”, then agree to the EULA and email us a letter stating that you understand and agree to proper usage of our trademarks, then click “Show All settings” and add the key “browser.surveillance.telemetry.justkidding.spyonusmaybe” and set it to string value “0x3b338912″ and we won’t send any data in until we think of another way to make you even MORE free.

I don’t think you people get why we do this stuff. It’s all to help us help YOU. And this is the thanks we get!

When we sell the data, we also put that into helping YOU. But first we print it all out and go at your personal information really firmly with a rubber. Your privacy is totally safe!

Didn’t you learn anything when people tried to say that Ubuntu Unity Amazon Lens was spyware? Mark Shuttleworth explained all this, he said that if you trust Canonical with root access then obviously, you’re giving them permission to do whatever — and if you gave them permission, you shouldn’t complain. And that’s what trust is all about!

So really, we aren’t even asking for root access. Just sending some data from your software to our servers which is absolutely and in every way perfectly useless for indicating anything that you’re doing in a way that could you know, somehow “track” what you’re doing. Just think of it as random numbers, alright? Random numbers that aren’t at all important.

“Sometimes we sell data to Google. It’s not YOUR data, it’s OUR data. We’re the ones who found it. Yes, we wrote code for your browser to send it to us.”What I’d like to see is any of you whingers and peons try to maintain your own web browser, alright? I mean, it looks easy, but it’s really hard work! And then a bunch of uppity know-it-alls — sorry, I mean you people start talking about “ethics” like we did something wrong! And they you say we are spying on you! We are a non-profit, Hello? EVERYTHING we do is ethical.

Try and maintain a complex piece of software like a browser or an office suite, and then you’ll understand.

Until then, PLEASE just shut up already, it’s not helping anything. Turn off your computer and go put your tinfoil hats on, but don’t bother us with a bunch of silly nonsense. Come back when you want to contribute some code, or help pay for our time, when you’ve grown up a little.


“Try and maintain a complex piece of software like a browser or an office suite, and then you’ll understand.”Also, by all means, please feel free to copy and share this with your other loser friends who have nothing better to do than complain all the time.

Yours Sincerely,

Fed Up Developer Tired Of All The Whinging

(Sir Fed Up Developer Tired Of All The Whinging, to you.)

Public Domain

LinuxFoundationX (edX) LFS101x “Introduction to Linux” is More Linux Foundation Marketing and ‘Linux’ Revisionism Than Actual Training/Teaching

Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Kernel at 1:54 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Forget GNU ever existed… because patently dishonest people work to reinforce the falsehoods or the false history/role of Linux

edX marketing: Is this course about Linux? Or about about Linux Foundation?

Summary: The Linux Foundation makes a course about “Linux” partly about itself (the Linux Foundation, with top members like Microsoft and Oracle) and distorts the record with terms like “Open Source” and the pretense everything is “Linux” (even work that predates Linux itself)

AS noted the other day (in passing), I recently went through the whole of LFS101x (maybe 400 pages in total) to assess what they’re teaching. Many people are enrolling to this, basically to be lectured by the Linux Foundation (via edX) about this thing called “Linux”. What are they taught? What are they told? Are they being educated or programmed (part of the course actually teaches programming, not Linux, especially the late sections that deal with Bash).

“In future parts we may take a closer look at the distortion of history and gross mis-attribution.”The beginning of the course is the most blatant example of shameless self-promotion disguised as “course” or “studying”. What are people being told? Let’s take a few examples, other than the one above (it’s an actual section of a course on “Linux”!), and humbly examine the accuracy.

edX marketing 0

edX marketing 1

edX marketing 2

edX marketing 3

edX marketing 4

edX marketing 5

Seeing the pattern? Teaching people to revere the Linux Foundation, which can easily be conflated with Linux itself (although the Linux Foundation pays less than 1% of the developers of Linux and doesn’t even have the Linux trademark, still assigned to Linus Torvalds). In future parts we may take a closer look at the distortion of history and gross mis-attribution. Linux Foundation is just a $100,000,000 gorilla (hence the clip below) that milks the word “Linux” to raise money and pay outrageous salaries to non-geeks who don’t even use “Linux” (they don’t understand it, either).

Microsoft Sheds Off Lots of Staff in This Autumn of COVID

Posted in Deception, Microsoft at 11:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The autumn

Summary: Microsoft is laying off more staff than we’ve estimated (even Azure staff) and the modus operandi disguises layoffs as mere departures (to make it seem wilful)

I RECENTLY spoke to someone from Microsoft (with no loyalty to the company; the person just views the job as means for squeezing out some cash before the company collapses). I discussed the Bill Gates deposition, the Gates connections to Mr. Epstein (a particularly strong connection which he does not deny). I learned about silent layoffs — those unaccounted for in the estimated 5,000 layoffs that occurred throughout the summer (even Azure wasn't spared).

Protecting the identity of this source is of utmost interest; we therefore won’t mention specific examples and leave things more sketchy than we would have liked; we have some leaks coming (clues here), but today we’d rather focus on what we learned.

“It’s not all roses and a career at Microsoft is anything but rosy (they froze hirings).”In past years we spoke about how Microsoft had begun hiring temporary workers and/or contractors instead of full-time staff with permanent work contracts. This lets layoffs be labelled as something else. But as it turns out, Microsoft has another trick up its sleeve. Assessments of workers (or appraisals) happen in many large companies. Sometimes the rule is, those at the bottom X% must improve or will be replaced by newer workers (depending on the economic atmosphere). Sometimes they’re given a warning or probationary period, which can be intimidating and stressful. But as it turns out, there’s a new trick and it happens a lot at Microsoft. Low-performing workers are told to pursue employment elsewhere and then make a ‘swift’ transition/transfer; so in effect those are layoffs, but they’re being spun as someone ‘leaving’ the company for greener pastures elsewhere (even if it was all along imposed). It’s ‘scripted’ for PR (face-saving) purposes.

Red dahliaWe don’t suppose Microsoft is the only company doing that, but apparently this trick was exploited quite a lot lately. The company relies on bailout money, it is faking its financial results, and many people lose their jobs there. Don’t be misled or fooled by festive superficialities (they’re overstretching, just like the Linux Foundation, which also operates at a loss).

Ignore the flowers and kisses. It’s not all roses and a career at Microsoft is anything but rosy (they froze hirings). We predict that sooner or later the financial fraud will become more widely seen.

Margarita blanca

[Meme] Microsoft’s Calculator is Spyware

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 11:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Calculating: I needed to calculate something and Microsoft calculated my mind

Summary: The last thing GNU/Linux users need or want is yet another simple calculation tool, this one with Microsoft in control

History’s Lesson: Microsoft Now Does to GNU/Linux What It Did to Java (Creating ‘Schism’ to ‘Wrest Control’)

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Deception, GNU/Linux, Java, Microsoft, Standard, SUN at 11:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Earlier on today: Bill Gates Refers to His Business as “Jihad” and Accuses Java of Being a “Religion” With “Rabid” Supporters

Summary: We take a closer look at what Bill Gates admitted (under pressure, with ‘smoking guns’ to compel him into admission) regarding his rogue tactics

THE Bill Gates deposition is not “old news” per se; many of the things discussed in it prevail to this day as serious issues, including the cult-like mentality. This sort of cult (with terms like “Jihad” used abundantly) is why we end up with something called Linux Foundation whilst actually undermining Linux in a number of ways. Or OSI helping GitHub’s (Microsoft’s) attack on Open Source. The cult generally infiltrates and poisons its opposition.

“This sort of cult (with terms like “Jihad” used abundantly) is why we end up with something called Linux Foundation whilst actually undermining Linux in a number of ways. Or OSI helping GitHub’s (Microsoft’s) attack on Open Source. The cult generally infiltrates and poisons its opposition.”The bits below are a subset of the full text in which the interrogators discuss Microsoft’s attempt at “wrest[ing] control of Java” using “proprietary APIs” (think DirectX in WSL or Microsoft’s bastardisation of GNU/Linux) and deliberate fragmentation (in effect, technical sabotage). See our Java section in the old wiki; it’s still a go-to section for more examples like that. To make things easy for readers to digest we’ve highlighted in yellow some of the relevant bits:

	9				This is an e-mail to you from Ben
10 Slivka dated April 14, 1997. And the subject is,
11 quote, "Java review with you," close quote.
12 (The document referred to was marked as
13 Government Exhibit 372 for identification and is
14 attached hereto.)
15 Q BY MR. BOIES: Did you receive this
16 e-mail in or about April of 1997, Mr. Gates?
17 A I don't remember.
18 Q The e-mail begins that the author is
19 working with Paul Maritz to set up a two -- to
20 three-hour review for you on your Java efforts.
21 Do you see that?
22 A On our Java efforts.
23 Q On Microsoft's Java efforts?
24 A No. I think it's Ben Slivka's group.
25 Q And he is a Microsoft group; right?

1 A Yes. He's part of Microsoft but not
2 all of Microsoft.
3 Q So you would interpret this that he is
4 working with Paul Maritz to set up a two- to
5 three-hour review for you of part of Microsoft's Java
6 efforts but not all of Microsoft's Java efforts; is
7 that what you're saying?
8 A Yeah. The work his group is doing.
9 Q The work his group is doing on Java;
10 right?
11 A Right.
12 Q Okay.
13 And he lists what he describes as some
14 pretty pointed questions that you, Mr. Gates, had
15 about Java.
16 Do you see that?
17 A Well, I'm not sure those are the
18 pointed questions. It says, "I want to make sure I
19 understand your issues/concerns."
20 Q Well, that's actually the last part of
21 a sentence that begins, quote:
22 "When I met with you last,
23 you had a lot of pretty pointed
24 questions about Java, so I want to
25 make sure I understand your

1 issues/concerns."
2 That's what the sentence says; correct,
3 sir?
4 A Right.
5 Q And when Mr. Slivka says "I met with
6 you last," he's talking about you, Mr. Gates; correct
7 sir?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And when he says, "You had a lot of
10 pretty pointed questions about Java," he's again
11 talking about you, Mr. Gates; correct?
12 A Right.
13 Q And then he lists what he refers to as
14 a start:
15 "1. What is our business
16 model for Java?
17 "2. How do we wrest control
18 of Java away from Sun?"

19 Do you see that?
20 A Uh-huh.
21 Q Sometime prior to April 14, 1997, had
22 you conveyed to Mr. Slivka that one of your pointed
23 questions about Java was, quote, "How do we wrest
24 control of Java away from Sun?"

25 A I don't think I would have put it that

1 way. Certainly was an issue about the popularity of
2 Sun's runtime APIs versus our runtime APIs.
3 Q Is it your testimony that you didn't
4 raise the question of "How do we wrest control of
5 Java away from Sun?"
with Mr. Slivka?
6 A I'll say again, I doubt I used words
7 like that. But there certainly was an issue of the
8 popularity of our runtime APIs versus runtime APIs.
9 Q Just so that the record's clear. I'm
10 not asking you about whether there was a question
11 about the popularity of your runtime APIs or their
12 runtime APIs. What I'm asking is whether you told
13 him in words or in substance that you wanted to know
14 how Microsoft could wrest control or get control of
15 Java away from Sun
16 MR. HEINER: Objection. Asked and
17 answered twice.
18 MR. BOIES: I think he said he didn't
19 remember using those words. What I now want to try
20 to find out is whether he used those words or
21 conveyed that substance.
22 MR. HEINER: And he doesn't remember
23 using those words.
24 MR. BOIES: And I'm asking him whether
25 he conveyed that in words or in substance.

1 MR. HEINER: He testified as to
2 substance.
3 MR. BOIES: I don't believe he did.
4 But I'm in any event putting the question to the
5 witness.
6 THE WITNESS: I don't remember anything
7 about "control" as a word or in substance. But there
8 was an issue about the popularity of our runtime APIs
9 versus Sun's runtime APIs.
10 Q BY MR. BOIES: I take it you know
11 Mr. Slivka?
12 A Uh-huh.
13 Q You've got to answer "yes" or "no"
14 audibly so the reporter can take it down.
15 A Yes.
16 Q And you believe him to be a person of
17 competence and integrity?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Do you have any reason to believe that
20 he would have misstated what you told him when you
21 met with him last before April 14, 1997?
22 MR. HEINER: Objection.
23 THE WITNESS: In no way does this
24 purport to be a restatement of things I said to Ben
25 Slivka.

1 Q BY MR. BOIES: Well, Mr. Gates, what
2 this memorandum says is, quote,
3 "When I met with you last,
4 you had a lot of pretty pointed
5 questions about Java, so I want to
6 make sure I understand your issues
7 and concerns."
8 "Here's a start, can you
9 please add any that I'm missing?"
10 And then he lists six, the second of
11 which is, "How do we wrest control of Java away from
12 Sun?"

13 You see that in the exhibit, do you
14 not, sir?
15 A Uh-huh, yes.
16 Q Let me ask you to look at a document
17 that has been previously marked as Government Exhibit
18 373. It's a one-page exhibit and the second item on
19 the page is a message from you to Paul Maritz dated
20 June 16, 1997, on the subject of, quote, "Java
21 schism
," close quote.
22 (The document referred to was marked as
23 Government Exhibit 373 for identification and is
24 attached hereto.)
25 Q BY MR. BOIES: Did you send this

1 message, Mr. Gates?
2 A I don't remember it. But I don't have
3 any reason to doubt that I did.
4 Q What did you mean by, quote, "Java
5 schism
," close quote?
6 A I think the e-mail speaks for itself.
7 Q The e-mail may very well speak for
8 itself. But what I want to know is --
9 A I could have written a mail that says,
10 "A point that is important
11 to me is to have PURE JAVA
12 applications that do a lot HAVE to
13 ship a full runtime instead of being
14 able to count on the runtime being
15 shipped with the operating system,"
16 and so on.
17 Q Maybe my question wasn't clear. What
18 I'm trying to get you to do is to tell me what you
19 meant by the term "Java schism."
20 A It's a heading for this piece of
21 e-mail. The e-mail is the communication, not the
22 heading.
23 Q I understand that, sir. But what I'm
24 asking is: You chose the heading, did you not, sir?
25 A It appears I typed that.

1 Q Right. And why did you choose this
2 heading for this memo? What were you meaning to
3 convey by the term "Java schism"?
4 A Exactly what I put into the message.
5 Q Well, sir, what did you mean by
6 "schism"?
7 A It explains that in the message.
8 Q I'm asking you to explain it in your
9 words what you mean by the word "schism."
10 A I'm drawing a distinction between pure
11 Java apps and where they get their runtime bits.
12 Q And is that the schism that you're
13 referring to?
14 A That's what this e-mail is about, and
15 that's -- and I titled it "Java schism" when I wrote
16 that e-mail. And the question is: "How do pure Java
17 applications get their runtime bits?"
18 Q Could you read that answer back,
19 please?
20 (Answer read.)
21 Q BY MR. BOIES: What is on the two sides
22 of the schism, Mr. --
23 A The bits you get from the browser, the
24 bits you get elsewhere. And the mail couldn't be
25 clearer. It's asking about two sources of the bits.

1 You can get bits from the browser, you can get bits
2 somewhere else.
3 Q Okay.
4 Now, where else can you get the bits?
5 A They can ship with the application.
6 Q And why was it important to you to have
7 pure Java applications that have the characteristics
8 that you described in here?
9 A I didn't want to have to have the
10 browser get so large that it would have all the
11 runtime bits for all the applications.
12 Q And so where would the bits be?
13 A With the application.
14 Q And what you're saying is that it's
15 important to you that Microsoft develop pure Java
16 applications that have a lot of bits in them so that
17 those bits don't have to be in the browser. Is that
18 the case?
19 A No. It doesn't say anything about
20 Microsoft developing pure Java applications.
21 Q You're right, it doesn't.
22 A And it's clearly not about that.
23 Q What is it about then, sir?
24 A It's about pure Java applications in
25 general.

1 Q Did you believe that it was desirable
2 to have as many pure Java applications as possible?
3 A It has nothing to do with this e-mail.
4 The answer is no. But if you think it has something
5 to do with this e-mail, you're -- that's incorrect.
6 Q Okay. I think that it may or may not
7 be productive for you to speculate as to what I
8 think. What I am trying to do is I'm trying to get
9 your testimony about this e-mail and about your views
10 of Java more generally.
11 A I thought so.
12 Q And first let me ask a general
13 question, and that is: Did you believe that from
14 Microsoft's standpoint it was desirable to have as
15 many pure Java applications as possible?
16 A We weren't focused on that as a goal,
17 no.
18 Q In fact, is it fair to say that you
19 preferred fewer pure Java applications to more pure
20 Java applications?
21 A We preferred more applications that
22 took advantage of our APIs, and so we worked with
23 ISVs to maximize the number that took advantage of
24 our APIs.
25 Q And your APIs were not pure Java APIs;

1 correct?
2 A No. Some were, and some weren't.
3 Q Yes, sir, some were, and some weren't.
4 But the APIs that you wanted people to
5 use were APIs that were not pure Java APIs; correct,
6 sir?
7 A No. We were glad to have people use
8 both.
9 Q Were you indifferent as to whether they
10 used your pure Java APIs or your proprietary APIs?
11 MR. HEINER: Objection.
12 THE WITNESS: You've introduced the
13 word proprietary, and that completely changes the
14 question. So help me out, what do you want to know?
15 Q BY MR. BOIES: Is the term "proprietary
16 API"
a term that you're familiar with, sir?
17 A I don't know what you mean by it.
18 Q Is it a term you're familiar with in
19 your business?
20 A I really don't know what you mean. You
21 mean an API that you have a patent on?
22 Q Mr. Gates, is the term "proprietary
23 API"
a term that is commonly used in your business?
24 A Let me give you --
25 Q All I'm trying to do --

1 A -- the common meanings that those words
2 could have. And then you can pick one of them, and
3 ask me a question about it.
4 Q No. All I need --
5 A Just -- you want me to define
6 "proprietary API" or not?
7 Q No, I don't want you to define
8 "proprietary API." I didn't ask you to define
9 proprietary API. I asked you a simple question
10 whether the term "proprietary API" was commonly used
11 in your business.
12 Now, I'm prepared to sit here as long
13 as you want to to answer questions that I haven't
14 asked. But I have a certain number of questions that
15 I'm going to ask at the end of these other answers.
16 Now, this is a simple question. You can say "yes,"
17 "no," or "It is used in lots of different ways." But
18 then I can choose what to follow up on. Or you can
19 simply make whatever statements you want, and I'll go
20 back to my question afterwards.
21 MR. HEINER: The witness is simply
22 trying to help you through a difficult subject
23 matter. That's all that's happening. It's not
24 offensive.
25 MR. BOIES: It is not offensive. But

1 all I am saying is with due respect, this witness's
2 efforts do not help me clarify difficult subjects.
3 MR. HEINER: They could help. But go
4 ahead and read the question one more time, or state
5 it again and he can answer it.
6 MR. BOIES: Okay.
7 Q Is the term "proprietary API" a term
8 that is commonly used in your business?
9 A I don't know how common it is. It has
10 many different meanings.
11 Q Is it a term that you have used in your
12 business?
13 A Sometimes.
14 Q Okay. Now, is it fair to say that when
15 you use the term "proprietary APIs" sometimes you
16 mean one thing and sometimes you mean something else?
17 A That's right.
18 Q Would you give me the different
19 meanings that you sometimes ascribe to the term
20 "proprietary APIs" when you use that term?
21 A It can mean an API that only happens to
22 be available from one company. It can mean an API
23 that for some reason related to intellectual property
24 can only be available from one company, and, of
25 course, that's never a black and white thing. It can

1 mean an API that somebody's chosen not to take to a
2 standards body. Those are three different things you
3 might mean by it.
4 Q I just want to be sure that the answer
5 is clear.
6 I'm not asking what I might mean by it
7 or what a person might mean by it. What I'm trying
8 to do is get you to tell me meanings that you ascribe
9 to that term when you use it.
10 A I've used all three of those.
11 Q Okay.
12 Are there other meanings that you have
13 ascribed to the term "proprietary API" in your use of
14 that term?
15 A Not that I can think of right now.
16 Q Okay.
17 Now, with respect to the API in
18 Windows, there are both Java APIs and non-Java APIs;
19 is that fair?
20 A I hate to tell you this, but what you
21 mean by "Java" there is subject to massive ambiguity.
22 Q Let me try to put the question this
23 way: In Windows there are pure Java APIs, there are
24 impure Java APIs, and there are APIs that have
25 nothing to do with Java; is that fair?

1 MR. HEINER: Objection. I guess at
2 this point I'll have to say that if we're going to
3 talk about pure Java APIs, you'll have to take the
4 time to go down that path as well, which I know
5 you're happy to do of defining what that term means.
6 MR. BOIES: I mean what the witness
7 meant when he wrote this e-mail on June 16, 1997.
8 MR. HEINER: Fine.
9 THE WITNESS: I don't see anything
10 about APIs.
11 Q BY MR. BOIES: Do you see "PURE
12 JAVA" --
13 A Yeah. But I don't see APIs.
14 Q -- in capital letters?
15 And I can spend as much time as we have
16 to on this. I think it shouldn't be necessary, but
17 if we have to, we will.
18 MR. HEINER: Mr. Boies, the difficulty
19 is -- I don't mean to be at all rude, but it's
20 partly -- you know, it's partly the complexity of the
21 subject matter and the difficulty you're having in
22 posing these questions. Java is a complex subject.
23 MR. BOIES: Java is a complex subject.
24 But when somebody talks about pure Java APIs, I don't
25 think that that is something that the witness can't

1 answer.
2 THE WITNESS: But you said that the
3 e-mail talks about pure Java API. And it doesn't.
4 MR. BOIES: No. I said pure Java.
5 THE WITNESS: No. You said APIs.
6 Q BY MR. BOIES: Mr. Gates, let me ask a
7 question. If you can't answer the question, you
8 can't answer the question.
9 Does Windows include pure Java APIs?
10 A There's a -- in some versions of
11 Windows there are some Java runtime APIs which at one
12 time Sun labeled as pure Java APIs.
13 Subsequently they changed in a way that
14 was not upwards compatible, so it's actually kind of
15 confusing.
16 Q Does Windows have any APIs that you
17 would consider to be pure Java APIs?
18 A Today?
19 Q Yes.
20 A Yeah. I guess the AWT 1.1 stuff you
21 might think of that way.
22 Q Anything else?
23 A I don't know what you mean "anything
24 else." Are we enumerating?
25 Q Any other API in Windows that you would

1 consider to be pure Java APIs, Mr. Gates?
2 A I know there's more. I don't know the
3 technical names for them.
4 Q And does Microsoft have a version of
5 Java that is not what you refer to in your memo as
6 pure Java?
7 A I have no idea what you mean by that
8 question.
9 Q Okay.
10 Does Windows include APIs that are
11 written in what is described as a form or version of
12 Java but not pure Java?
13 A Are you talking about the language?
14 Q If you don't understand the question,
15 Mr. Gates, you can simply say you don't understand
16 the question.
17 A Okay. I'm sorry. I don't understand
18 the question.
19 Q Good. Okay. That's what I'm trying to
20 do. What I'm trying to do is get on the record what
21 you say you understand and what you say you don't
22 understand.
23 MR. HEINER: Any time that the witness
24 clearly indicates he doesn't understand the question
25 but doesn't preface it with the words "I don't

1 understand the question." If you want that
2 convention --
3 MR. BOIES: I do, because I don't want
4 speeches as to what the witness does think if he
5 simply doesn't understand the question.
6 THE WITNESS: No. But I was pointing
7 out to you the part of the question that I didn't
8 understand because it was ambiguous.
9 MR. BOIES: Would you read the answer
10 back, please, or the statement.
11 (The following answer was read:
12 "A Are you talking about the language?")
13 MR. BOIES: No. I'm not talking about
14 the language if by "the language," you mean all the
15 things that you said about the Java language when we
16 were talking about Java yesterday. Now, let me go
17 back to me asking the questions, if I can.
18 Q As part of an effort to take control of
19 Java away from Sun in the terms used by Mr. Slivka in
20 his memo with Mr. Gates -- to you dated April 14,
21 1997, did Microsoft make an effort to get people to
22 use a version of Java APIs that was not pure Java
23 APIs?
24 MR. HEINER: Objection.
25 THE WITNESS: That's a very compound --

1 I don't understand the question.
2 Q BY MR. BOIES: Okay.
3 In an attempt to, in Mr. Slivka's
4 words, wrest control of Java away from Sun, did
5 Microsoft make an effort to get programmers to write
6 to APIs that could be used to run applications on
7 Windows but not on all other operating systems to
8 which a pure Java written program could be run?
9 A I wouldn't say that was part of
10 anything to do with controlling Java. But we do
11 promote the use of the unique Windows APIs.
12 Q And with respect to the unique Windows
13 APIs, are some of those APIs APIs that Microsoft
14 describes as Java APIs or has in the past?
15 A All of our APIs can be called from
16 Java. So now I don't know what you mean by a Java
17 API. Usually somebody would mean something that you
18 can only call from Java or something you can call
19 from Java whether you can call it from other
20 languages or not.
21 Our APIs we make available to a broad
22 set of languages including Java but others as well.
23 Q Mr. Gates, you've been sued by Sun
24 Microsystems over Java, have you not?
25 A There's a lawsuit with Sun.

1 Q Well, there's a lawsuit with Sun, and
2 it's a lawsuit with Sun relating to the use of Java;
3 right?
4 A It relates to a very specific contract
5 that we have with Sun.
6 Q And does that very specific contract
7 with Sun relate to Java?
8 A It's a license to various Sun
9 technologies related to Java.
10 Q Now, you're familiar with that lawsuit,
11 are you not, sir?
12 A Not very.
13 Q Not very?
14 Do you know what the contentions in
15 that lawsuit are?
16 A No.
17 Q Never tried to find out? Is that your
18 testimony?
19 A I haven't read the complaint, if that's
20 your question.
21 Q That's not my question.
22 My question is whether you've ever
23 tried to find out the substance of the allegations
24 about Java that Sun is making in its lawsuit against
25 Microsoft.

1 A My understanding of their allegations
2 is very limited.
3 Q What is your understanding of their
4 allegations?
5 A I haven't read the contract between
6 Microsoft and Sun.
7 Q I'm asking you about the allegations in
8 the complaint, not whether you've read the contract.
9 I'm asking you for your understanding, which I know
10 you've already said is very limited. But I'm asking
11 for your understanding of what allegations Sun makes
12 in its claim against Microsoft.
13 A I think there's some dispute about they
14 were supposed to make the test cases public and
15 upwards compatible, and they didn't make them public,
16 and they weren't upwards compatible. And that
17 relates to the contract that I haven't read.
18 Q And that's what you think they allege
19 in the complaint?
20 A Well, that -- those are certain things
21 that they were required to do, I believe.
22 Q My question is not about what you
23 believe they were required to do, Mr. Gates. My
24 question is: What is your understanding about the
25 complaint that they make about what you did, about

1 what Microsoft did?
2 Do you understand the question?
3 A You're asking me to summarize their
4 lawsuit?
5 Q I'm asking you to tell me what you know
6 about the claims they make in that lawsuit. You said
7 you know something about it, but it's very limited.
8 All I'm trying to do is get you to tell me what it is
9 you know about the claims they make in their lawsuit.
10 A I think they want us to ship JNI.
11 Q Is that all you know about their
12 claims?
13 A I think there was something about a
14 trademark.
15 Q What about the trademark?
16 A Whether we could use the trademark.
17 I'm not sure.
18 Q Don't you know, Mr. Gates, one of the
19 allegations that they make is that you're taking
20 their trademark and applying it to things that it
21 shouldn't be applied to?
22 A Yeah. I think there's a trademark
23 issue. I'm not sure what they're saying about the
24 trademark.
25 Q Do you know anything that they're

1 saying about the trademark according to your present
2 testimony?
3 A I know there's a dispute about the
4 trademark.
5 Q Well, don't you know that one of the
6 things they're alleging is that Microsoft is taking
7 their trademark and applying it to things that
8 shouldn't be applied to according to them?
9 A I'm not sure that's right.
10 Q You're not sure?
11 A Because I don't think we used their
12 trademark, I'm not sure. I'm kind of confused about
13 that. I've never seen us using their trademark, so
14 I'm a little confused about how that relates to any
15 dispute with Sun.
16 Q Did you ever try to find that out?
17 A What?
18 Q What the claims were more than your
19 present knowledge.
20 A I read something that was on our web
21 site about four days ago.
22 Q About the Sun lawsuit?
23 A Yeah. Bob Muglia had some statements.
24 Q Other than that, did you ever try to
25 find out what Microsoft is being charged with, what

1 they're alleged to have done wrong?
2 A I've had discussions with Maritz
3 saying: Do I need to learn about this lawsuit? Do I
4 need to spend a lot of time on it?
5 Q What did he say?
6 A He said, no, he's focused on that and I
7 can focus on other things.
8 Q Is one of the things that you're
9 focused on trying, in Mr. Slivka's words, to wrest
10 control or get control, if wrest is a word that you
11 don't like, of Java away from Sun?

12 A No.
13 Q How did you think Microsoft could get
14 control of Java away from Sun?
15 MR. HEINER: Objection.
16 THE WITNESS: I honestly don't know
17 what you mean by "control of Java." I know those
18 words are in that e-mail from Mr. Slivka. But when
19 you're asking me the question, I don't know what you
20 mean "control of Java."
21 Q BY MR. BOIES: Is it your testimony,
22 Mr. Gates, that as you sit here today under oath you
23 have no idea what Mr. Slivka meant when he said that
24 one of the pointed questions that you had raised with
25 him was how to get control of Java away from Sun?

1 A I told you, I think it related to our
2 attempt to make our runtime APIs the most popular
3 runtime APIs.
4 Q And not the Java APIs from Sun; is that
5 what you're saying?
6 A Well, let's not label the APIs, not the
7 unique ones that Sun was promoting.
8 Q When you say the unique ones that Sun
9 was promoting, what were the unique ones that Sun was
10 promoting called?
11 A I'm not sure what they're called. I
12 think AWT 1.2 maybe or JDK 1.2.
13 Q And is it your best testimony that
14 that's what you think this would have meant back in
15 April of 1997, sir?
16 A That what meant?
17 Q Getting control of Java away from Sun.
18 The thing we've been talking about here.
19 A Is that the same as "wrest control"?
20 You keep reading me these words from the e-mail.
21 Q Well, I'm trying to get away from the
22 word "rest" because you say you don't remember that
23 exact word. So I'm trying to use a word that's more
24 neutral like get or obtain control.
25 A And I've told you, I can't understand

1 what's meant by "control" there. I know that we're
2 trying to make our APIs popular with developers.
3 Q How does making your APIs popular with
4 developers relate to obtaining control of Java, if at
5 all?
6 A I don't know what it means to control
7 Java. How can somebody control Java? What does that
8 mean?
9 Q Is it your testimony that you have no
10 idea what that means?
11 A To control Java? I don't think anyone
12 can control Java. It's like saying controlling Basic
13 or COBOL.
14 Q Do you really mean that, sir?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And I'm going to press this just
17 another 30 seconds and then I will stop. But I
18 really do want to be sure that I have given you a
19 full and fair opportunity.
20 Is it your testimony that as you sit
21 here today under oath that you have no idea what is
22 meant by control of Java as used in this e-mail to
23 you by Mr. Slivka?
24 A I've said several times I think he must
25 be referring to our effort to make our APIs the most

1 popular APIs. But that wouldn't give us control of
2 Java. So I'm having a hard time relating it to these
3 specific words.
4 Q Well, without relating it to the
5 specific words, how would getting people to use your
6 APIs get control of Java? Why do you relate those
7 two in your mind?
8 A Because he probably means the Java
9 runtime, not Java.
10 Q Let's say he means the Java runtime.
11 A Then he's talking about the competition
12 of APIs.
13 Q Is it fair to say, Mr. Gates, that you
14 interpret this as how does Microsoft get, obtain,
15 control of Java runtime? Is that what you're saying?
16 A I think that's the most likely
17 explanation of what he meant. I still don't
18 understand the word "control" there because it's not
19 the word I'd use.
20 Q Well, according to Mr. Slivka it is the
21 word you used, is it not, sir?
22 MR. HEINER: Objection.
23 THE WITNESS: We've already been
24 through that.
25 Q BY MR. BOIES: But looking at this

1 doesn't refresh your recollection about having used
2 that word?
3 A It does not.
4 Q Have you ever said in words or in
5 substance to anyone that you wanted to obtain control
6 over Java or under -- over Java runtimes?
7 A I don't remember using those words.
8 Q Do you remember conveying that concept
9 or conveying that substance?
10 A If by "that concept" you mean conveying
11 the idea that we wanted our runtime APIs to be the
12 most popular, then the answer is yes.
13 Q Why did you want your runtime APIs to
14 be the most popular?
15 A By having our runtime APIs be the most
16 popular it means that people are more likely to
17 license Windows because there's applications that
18 take advantage of the unique innovations that are in
19 the Windows product.
20 Q Why does the fact that their
21 applications that take advantage of the unique APIs
22 that are in the Windows product make people more
23 likely to license Windows?
24 A Because it shows off the unique
25 innovations of Windows.

1 Q How does it show off the unique
2 innovations of Windows?
3 A Well, let's say, for example, they call
4 our tasking APIs, then it shows off the unique way
5 that we've done tasking. Let's say they call our
6 clipboard APIs, then it shows off the advances we've
7 made in data exchange which are very advanced.
8 Q Is it your testimony that trying to get
9 applications writers to write to Windows' own APIs
10 was something that you were trying to do only for the
11 reason that you've identified?
12 MR. HEINER: May I have that read back,
13 please?
14 (Question read.)
15 THE WITNESS: I think there's
16 additional reasons as well.
17 Q BY MR. BOIES: Isn't it a fact,
18 Mr. Gates, that one of the reasons that you were
19 trying -- that Microsoft was trying to get control
20 over the Java runtimes or Java, as it's described in
21 Mr. Slivka's memorandum, was to prevent Java or Java
22 runtimes from supporting competition with Windows?
23 MR. HEINER: Objection.
24 THE WITNESS: I don't know what you
25 mean by "control." That means I don't understand the

1 question.
2 Q BY MR. BOIES: Okay.
3 Did you ever participate in any
4 discussions within Microsoft as to the extent of
5 which Java or Java runtimes posed a threat to
6 Microsoft's position with respect to the Windows
7 platform?
8 A Yeah. I've already told you that there
9 came a point where we viewed Sun's unique Java
10 runtime APIs as a -- as a part of the competitive
11 environment, a competitor.
12 Q Okay.
13 Now, why were the Java APIs from Sun a
14 competitor?
15 A Well, if people just used the least
16 common denominator APIs, then they don't show off the
17 innovations that we're doing in Windows, and it makes
18 it less attractive to people to license Windows or
19 update Windows.
20 Q Now, what I'm trying to do -- and you
21 may think you've answered this question, but I don't
22 think the record makes it clear in any event.
23 What I'm trying to do is distinguish
24 between that reason which you've given me a couple
25 times and any other reason that may exist.

1 Do you understand what I'm asking?
2 A No.
3 Q Okay. Let me try it again.
4 Isn't it true, Mr. Gates, that in
5 addition to whatever desire you may have had to show
6 off your Windows capabilities that you say you had,
7 that one of the things that was going on here was
8 your trying, Microsoft's trying, to prevent Java from
9 getting wide enough distribution so that it could
10 support applications programming for platforms other
11 than Windows?
12 A No.
13 Q Not at all, sir?
14 A There's no limitation of distribution.
15 Q Didn't ask whether there was any
16 limitation of distribution. I asked you whether in
17 any way the desire to prevent Java from developing
18 applications that could be used on platforms other
19 than Windows motivated what Microsoft was doing in
20 connection with Java.
21 MR. HEINER: Objection. That's a
22 distinctly different question.
23 THE WITNESS: What does it mean Java
24 developing applications?
25 Q BY MR. BOIES: I actually didn't recall

1 that I used that phrase.
2 THE WITNESS: Can you read me the
3 question?
4 (The following question was read:
5 "Q I asked you whether in
6 any way the desire to prevent Java
7 from developing applications that
8 could be used on platforms other than
9 Windows motivated what Microsoft was
10 doing in connection with Java.")
11 MR. BOIES: Can you answer that
12 question, Mr. Gates. If you can't, I'll rephrase it.
13 But if you can answer, I'd like an answer.
14 THE WITNESS: I don't know what you
15 mean "Java developing applications."
16 Q BY MR. BOIES: Isn't it a fact,
17 Mr. Gates, that in addition to whatever other reasons
18 you say you had for what you did with Java and
19 Windows APIs, part of what you were trying to do was
20 to prevent Java from having a wide enough
21 distribution so that it could support programs that
22 could be used on platforms other than Windows?
23 A We had no way of preventing Java from
24 being used on other platforms. It is used on other
25 platforms.

1 Q That wasn't my question, sir. My
2 question is whether or not part of what you and
3 Microsoft was trying to do was to limit the
4 distribution of Java sufficiently so that you could
5 thereby limit or reduce the extent to which
6 applications were written that could be used on
7 platforms other than Windows.
8 A No. In fact, we sell the most popular
9 Java tools in the market.
10 Q It is your testimony, then, sitting
11 here, that Microsoft was not at all motivated by a
12 desire to limit the extent to which Java could be
13 used to develop applications programming that could
14 be used on platforms other than Microsoft's Windows?
15 Is that your testimony?
16 A Yes.
17 Q All right, sir.
18 Was your concern over Netscape's
19 browser at all related to the fact that Netscape's
20 browser was viewed within Microsoft as a method of
21 distributing Java?
22 MR. HEINER: Objection. At the risk of
23 belaboring the record.
24 Would you care to state the question
25 more precisely and perhaps develop a better record?

1 Or do you want to stick with the question you have?
2 MR. BOIES: If the witness tells me he
3 can't understand that question, that's an answer. If
4 he can understand the question, I'd like to have an
5 answer.
6 MR. HEINER: In addition to that
7 there's an objection based on that, so that's a
8 second consideration.
9 THE WITNESS: Well, you have to read
10 the question again. Sorry.
11 (The following question was read:
12 "Q Was your concern over
13 Netscape's browser at all related to
14 the fact that Netscape's browser was
15 viewed within Microsoft as a method
16 of distributing Java?")
17 MR. HEINER: Another objection.
18 Foundation.
19 MR. BOIES: Okay. I think the
20 foundation objection may be well-taken. Let me ask
21 the foundation question.
22 Q Did Microsoft believe that Netscape's
23 browser was a means of distributing Java APIs?
24 A Well, Netscape had some APIs in its
25 browser. I'm not sure if you would refer to them as

1 Java APIs or not.
2 Q It's not a question whether I would
3 refer to them that way or not, Mr. Gates. What I'm
4 asking you is what you and Microsoft believe.
5 And my question is: Did you and others
6 at Microsoft believe that Netscape's browser was a
7 method for distributing Java APIs?
8 A There were APIs in the Netscape
9 browser. I don't think they were strictly Java APIs
10 or even in a direct sense specifically.
11 Q Have you completed your answer, sir?
12 A Uh-huh.
13 MR. BOIES: Can I have the question
14 read back again?
15 (The following question was read:
16 "Q It's not a question
17 whether I would refer to them that
18 way or not, Mr. Gates. What I'm
19 asking you is what you and Microsoft
20 believe.
21 "And my question is: Did
22 you and others at Microsoft believe
23 that Netscape's browser was a method
24 for distributing Java APIs?")
25 Q BY MR. BOIES: Can you tell me that,

1 sir?
2 A There were APIs in Netscape browser
3 some of which under some definition of Java APIs
4 you'd call Java APIs.
5 Q And was there concern within Microsoft
6 that the distribution of these things that you say
7 could be called Java APIs would adversely affect
8 Microsoft?
9 A Our concern is always to get people to
10 develop Windows applications. And to the degree that
11 there's other APIs people to develop to, there's some
12 competition for the attention of developers and
13 focusing on those APIs. But that doesn't relate to
14 distribution.
15 MR. BOIES: Can I have my question read
16 back again, please?
17 (The following question was read:
18 "Q And was there concern
19 within Microsoft that the
20 distribution of these things that you
21 say could be called Java APIs would
22 adversely affect Microsoft?")
23 Q BY MR. BOIES: Could I have an answer
24 to that question, please, sir?
25 A No, not the distribution.

1 Q Let me ask you to look at a document
2 that has been previously marked as Government Exhibit
3 349. The first message in this exhibit is an e-mail
4 from Paul Maritz to you and a number of other people
5 dated July 14, 1997; correct, sir?
6 A That's what it appears to be, yes.
7 Q Did you receive this e-mail, sir?
8 A I don't remember it. But I don't have
9 any reason to doubt that I did.
10 Q Mr. Maritz writes to you in the third
11 sentence, quote,
12 "If we look further at
13 Java/JFC being our major threat, then
14 Netscape is the major distribution
15 vehicle."
16 Do you see that, sir?
17 A Uh-huh.
18 Q Do you recall Mr. Maritz telling you in
19 words or in substance that Netscape was the major
20 distribution vehicle for the Java/JFC threat to
21 Microsoft?
22 A No.
23 Q Did you believe in July of 1997 that
24 Java/JFC was a major threat to Microsoft as
25 Mr. Maritz writes here?

1 A It was a significant issue for his
2 group in terms of how ISVs would choose to focus
3 their development in the future.
4 Q Did you believe in July of 1997 that
5 Java/JFC was a major threat to Microsoft?
6 A In the form that it existed as of that
7 day, maybe not. But if we looked at how it might be
8 evolved in the future, we did think of it as
9 something that competed with us for the attention of
10 ISVs in terms of whether or not they would take
11 advantage of the advanced features of Windows.
12 Q Do you have any understanding as to
13 what Mr. Maritz meant when he wrote to you about
14 Java/JFC being a major threat to Microsoft?
15 A Yeah. I just answered that.
16 Q What did you understand Mr. Maritz to
17 mean when he says Java/JFC was Microsoft's major
18 threat?
19 A I just answered that.
20 Q You'll have to give me an answer,
21 Mr. Gates, because if you did answer it, it's not an
22 answer that I can understand how it applies to the
23 particular question I'm asking.
24 A I said we looked at how the various
25 runtime APIs which was always confusing, you know,

1 where they were going or what they were doing. And
2 "JFC" is just a term for some of those, how they
3 might evolve in a way that would take away the focus
4 of developers in terms of writing applications that
5 would take unique advantage of Windows features.
6 Q I understand that you say that that was
7 an issue for you. Why was that a major threat to
8 Microsoft, if you have any understanding?
9 A Well, if people stopped writing
10 applications that took advantage of Windows runtime
11 APIs, that would mean that users wouldn't have access
12 to the innovative features that we were putting into
13 Windows.
14 Q Why was that a major threat to
15 Microsoft?
16 A If ISVs weren't writing applications to
17 take unique advantage of Windows, then it wouldn't
18 show off the Windows innovation and so users wouldn't
19 have much reason to update Windows or to license any
20 new versions of Windows.
21 Q You referred to JFC in a couple answers
22 ago and, of course, that's here in the memo. What
23 does "JFC" stand for as you understand it?
24 A I was always a little confused about
25 that, and it changed over time. It stands for Java

1 Foundation Classes.
2 Q Mr. Maritz writes here that Netscape is
3 the major distribution vehicle for Java and Java
4 Foundation Classes.
5 Do you see that?
6 A That's at the end of that sentence?
7 Q Yes.
8 A Uh-huh.
9 Q Do you see that?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Now, in a prior answer you said you
12 didn't understand how the browser was a distribution
13 vehicle. Does this refresh your recollection that at
14 least within Microsoft in July of 1997 Netscape was
15 viewed as the major distribution vehicle for Java?
16 A Not for Java. And in my view, the
17 browser wasn't a key distribution channel. Maritz
18 may or may not have agreed with that. But you can
19 always ship the runtime with the applications.
20 Q Mr. Maritz here says, "Netscape is the
21 major distribution vehicle."
22 Now, it's clear to you, is it not, sir,
23 that he means the major distribution vehicle for Java
24 and Java Foundation Classes?
25 A He doesn't mean for Java.

1 Q Well, sir, he says --
2 A I told you many times about the use of
3 the word "Java." And I'm not sure you heard me.
4 When people use the word "Java," they don't mean just
5 Java.
6 Q So when Mr. Maritz here used the word
7 "Java," in this e-mail that you say you don't recall
8 receiving, you're telling me that he meant something
9 other than just Java?
10 A He -- I bet he meant some runtime APIs,
11 not Java.
12 Q Okay.
13 Let's assume that you're right, let's
14 assume that when he talks about Java he means Java
15 runtime APIs. Would you then agree that what he is
16 saying here is that Netscape is the major
17 distribution vehicle for Java runtime APIs and Java
18 Foundation Classes?
19 A That appears to be what he's saying in
20 this e-mail.
21 Q And what was Mr. Maritz's position in
22 July of 1997?
23 MR. HEINER: Asked and answered too
24 many times.
25 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I've answered this

1 three times.
2 MR. BOIES: I'm not sure you did as to
3 this particular point in time. And one of the things
4 that you have told me is that the titles changed.
5 And so one of the things I want to be sure the record
6 is clear on is what Mr. Maritz's position was as of
7 the time of this key document.
8 MR. HEINER: You can cut and paste the
9 transcript any way you want in your briefs and in
10 your opening and closing argument. The witness has
11 testified as to his title many times.
12 Q BY MR. BOIES: Mr. Gates, what was
13 Mr. Maritz's title on July 14, 1997?
14 A I think group vice president.
15 Q What was he group vice president of?
16 A I don't know what the title would have
17 said after that. But he managed the group that
18 contained all of our Windows activities.
19 Q Was he group vice president for
20 Platforms?
21 A I'm not sure. I'm sure if it contained
22 the word "Platforms," it didn't just say Platforms,
23 because he's got Office and some other things also.
24 Q But within his responsibilities would
25 have been Windows?

1 A That's right.
2 Q Let me ask you to look at a document
3 that has been marked as Government Exhibit 374. This
4 is an e-mail to you from Tod Nielsen dated August 25,
5 1997, with copies to Brad Chase.
6 (The document referred to was marked as
7 Government Exhibit 374 for identification and is
8 attached hereto.)
9 Q BY MR. BOIES: Did you receive this
10 e-mail, sir?
11 A I don't remember receiving it. But I
12 don't have any reason to doubt that I did.
13 Q Let me ask you to look at the seventh
14 paragraph down. That's the third paragraph from the
15 bottom, the last sentence. That says, quote,
16 "So, we are just proactively
17 trying to put obstacles in Sun's path
18 and get anyone that wants to write in
19 Java to use J/Direct and target
20 Windows directly," close quote.
21 Do you see that, sir?
22 A Uh-huh.
23 Q Do you recall being told in or about
24 August of 1997 that Microsoft was trying to put
25 obstacles in Sun's path and get anyone that wants to

1 write in Java to use J/Direct and target Windows
2 directly?
3 A No.
4 Q Do you know why Microsoft was trying to
5 put, quote, "obstacles in Sun's path," close quote?
6 A I don't know what that means.
7 Q Do you know why Microsoft was trying to
8 get anyone that wants to write in Java to use
9 J/Direct?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Why was that?
12 A Because J/Direct allows you to make
13 calls that show off unique innovations in Windows and
14 make -- therefore, make Windows more attractive.
15 Q Was there any reason other than that
16 that Microsoft wanted to get anyone that wants to
17 write in Java to use J/Direct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q What?
20 A Well, there's a benefit to us if people
21 are showing off Windows, and it increases Windows
22 popularity. That helps us with the other
23 applications we write for Windows as well including
24 Microsoft Office.
25 Q How is that so?

1 A Because Microsoft Office is targeted to
2 Windows, we get a benefit that goes even beyond
3 increased sales of Windows if we manage to popularize
4 Windows.
5 Q Why is that?
6 A Because they can buy Office.
7 Q They can buy Office and use it on the
8 Mac, too, can't they, since you didn't cancel Mac
9 Office?
10 A We have a much wider set of
11 applications available for the Windows platform than
12 any other platform. And we have more frequent
13 updates of products like Office on the Windows
14 platform. It's a more powerful version, the Windows
15 version, and it -- therefore, our revenue per unit is
16 somewhat higher.
17 Q You mean the version of Office for
18 Windows is more powerful than the version of Office
19 for Mac? Is that what you're saying?
20 A Yes. We have Office Pro.
21 Q What is J/Direct?
22 A J/Direct is a way of allowing Java
23 language code to call native OS functionality. It's
24 a fairly clever thing that we have done. And others
25 now use that term to refer to it when they let their

1 OS functionality show through as well.
2 Q You have referred to Java runtimes.
3 Are there J/Direct runtimes?
4 A There's a thunk, but it's -- I don't
5 know if you would call it a runtime or not. It's a
6 thunk.
7 Q Would you define for me what the
8 difference is, in your mind, between a thunk and a
9 runtime?
10 A A thunk is a small piece of runtime
11 that remaps parameters and calling conventions in
12 such a way to be able to pass along an API call to
13 another piece of runtime.
14 Q Does -- or I should say, when was
15 J/Direct developed by Microsoft?
16 A I'm not sure.
17 Q Approximately?
18 A I don't -- I don't know. I mean --
19 Q Why was J/Direct developed by
20 Microsoft?
21 A To make is easy for people who choose
22 the Java language to call the unique runtime features
23 in various operating systems including Windows.
24 Q Why do you want people to write in
25 J/Direct as opposed to Java?

1 A They are writing in Java. You only use
2 J/Direct if you write in Java.
3 Q Well, what Mr. Nielsen says is that
4 Microsoft is trying to get anyone that wants to write
5 in Java to use J/Direct.
6 Do you see that?
7 A That's right. And that means writing
8 in Java.
9 Q And why do you want to get anyone who
10 wants to write in Java to use J/Direct?
11 A Because that gives them a way of
12 calling unique Windows APIs that allow us to show off
13 the innovative features in Windows.
14 Q Couldn't you do that by having them
15 simply write in Java and you providing the thunk
16 separately?
17 A The name of the thunk is J/Direct. I
18 guess we could have another thunk and call it
19 something other than J/Direct, and that would be
20 another way that they could do it. But we didn't
21 choose to do it twice.
22 Q No, you didn't choose to do it twice.
23 That's not my question, Mr. Gates.
24 My question is why you were trying to
25 get program developers, independent programming

1 people, to use J/Direct. Why were you trying to get
2 them to do that?
3 MR. HEINER: Certainly asked and
4 answered.
5 THE WITNESS: Because it allows them to
6 get at the unique API functionality that's in the
7 Windows product and show off the innovations that we
8 do there.
9 Q BY MR. BOIES: But you didn't have to?
10 A Tell me some other way.
11 Q Well, I'm asking you. If you tell me
12 that that's what you say is the only way that you
13 could think of for them to do it, that's your
14 testimony. I don't get to testify here. If I did,
15 there would have been a lot of things I would have
16 said along the way. But since I don't get to
17 testify, all I get to do is ask you questions.
18 And my question to you is whether there
19 was a way, that you were aware of at the time, to let
20 people see all of what you refer to as the
21 functionality of Windows without getting people to
22 write to what you refer to here to use J/Direct if
23 they wanted to write in Java.
24 A J/Direct is exactly the work we did to
25 make it possible and reasonable for people writing in

1 Java to call the unique Windows APIs.
2 Q Have you finished your answer?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Okay.
5 Now, were you aware of other ways of
6 accomplishing the same result that you considered and
7 rejected at the time?
8 A What time is that?
9 Q The time that you developed J/Direct.
10 A We don't know what that time is.
11 Q Well, you may not know the exact year.
12 But do you know that when -- were you aware when
13 J/Direct was being developed within Microsoft? Were
14 you aware of it at the time?
15 A I'm not sure.
16 Q Did you know it was being developed?
17 A I'm not sure.
18 Q Did you have any discussions about the
19 development of J/Direct?
20 A I was not involved in the design of
21 J/Direct.
22 Q I'm not asking you whether you were
23 involved in the design of J/Direct. I'm asking you
24 whether you were aware at the time that J/Direct was
25 being developed that it was being developed?

1 A I'm not sure.
2 Q Did you ever have any discussions with
3 anyone about the development of J/Direct at or about
4 the time it was being developed?
5 A I don't think so.
6 Q At the time that J/Direct was being
7 developed, did you know that people were trying to
8 develop J/Direct?
9 A It's just a thunk.
10 Q My question is: Did you know that they
11 were trying to develop this thunk?
12 A I doubt it.
13 Q Did you participate at all in any
14 discussions as to what alternatives there were to the
15 development of J/Direct?
16 A Before it was developed?
17 Q Let's start with before it was
18 developed.
19 A No, I don't think so.
20 Q What about during the time it was being
21 developed?
22 A I don't think so.
23 Q How about after it was developed?
24 A I don't think so.
25 MR. HEINER: We should take a break

1 soon.
2 MR. BOIES: Okay.
3 MR. HEINER: Okay.
5 2:02 P.M. We're going off the record. This is the
6 end of Tape 3 of the videotaped deposition of Bill
7 Gates.
8 (Recess.)
9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 2:16.
10 We're going back on the record. This is Tape 4 of
11 the videotaped deposition of Bill Gates on August 28.
12 Q BY MR. BOIES: Let me show you a
13 document that has been previously marked as
14 Government Exhibit 378.
15 (The document referred to was marked as
16 Government Exhibit 378 for identification and is
17 attached hereto.)
18 Q BY MR. BOIES: In the middle of the
19 first page there is a message dated May 14, 1997,
20 from Ben Slivka to you and others.
21 Did you receive this e-mail on or about
22 May 14, 1997?
23 A I'm not sure. But I have no reason to
24 doubt that I did.
25 Q When Mr. Slivka writes as he does in

1 the second paragraph, "This summer we're going to
2 totally divorce Sun," do you know what he's referring
3 to?
4 A I'm not sure.
5 Q Did you ever ask him what he was
6 referring to?
7 A No.
8 Q In the next to last -- or in the last
9 sentence, actually, in the last sentence of the
10 second paragraph, Mr. Slivka writes that "JDK 1.2 has
11 JFC." And is the JFC there the Java Foundation
12 Classes that you referred to earlier?
13 A It's one of the many JFCs.
14 Q What is one of the many JFCs?
15 A The one in JDK 1.2.
16 Q Is the JFC in JDK 1.2 part of what was
17 described as a major threat to Microsoft?
18 A I have no idea which JFC that sentence
19 written by somebody other than me referred to.
20 Q Well, the sentence written by somebody
21 other than you was written to you; right, sir?
22 A It was sent to me.
23 Q Yes. And it was sent to you by one of
24 your chief -- one of your top executives; correct,
25 sir?

1 A In an e-mail.
2 Q Yes.
3 And that's a frequent way that your top
4 executives communicate with you; correct, sir?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Now, Mr. Slivka here says that
7 Microsoft is going to be saying uncomplimentary
8 things about JDK 1.2 at every opportunity.
9 Do you see that?
10 A Where's that?
11 Q That is, "JDK 1.2 has JFC, which we're
12 going to be pissing on at every opportunity."
13 A I don't know if he's referring to
14 pissing on JFC or pissing on JDK 1.2 nor do I know
15 what he specifically means by "pissing on."
16 Q Well, do you know that generally he
17 means by pissing on he's going to be saying and
18 Microsoft is going to be saying uncomplimentary
19 things.
20 A He might mean that we're going to be
21 clear that we're not involved with it, that we think
22 there's a better approach.
23 Q Well, as you understand it, when
24 Mr. Slivka says he's going to be pissing on JDK 1.2,
25 as you seem to interpret it, at every opportunity, do

1 you interpret that as meaning that Microsoft is going
2 to be saying uncomplimentary things about JDK 1.2?
3 A I told you I don't know whether pissing
4 applies to JFC or JDK.
5 Q Well, he's going to be pissing on or
6 Microsoft is going to be pissing on either JDK 1.2 or
7 JFC or both according to Mr. Slivka.
8 Is that at least fair?
9 A That's appears to be what the sentence
10 says.
11 Q Yeah. And as the chief executive
12 officer of Microsoft, when you get these kind of
13 e-mails, would it be fair for me to assume that
14 "pissing on" is not some code word that means saying
15 nice things about you, that has the usual meaning
16 that it would in the vernacular?
17 A I don't know what you mean in this kind
18 of e-mail.
19 Q The kind of e-mail that is sent to you
20 by executives in the course of your business,
21 Mr. Gates.
22 A So all e-mails I get? Ben Slivka's not
23 an executive.
24 Q All the e-mails you get from people
25 telling you that they're going to piss on competitive

1 products, that's what I'm talking about.
2 A I don't remember mail like that. It
3 looks like I got one. But believe me, it's not a
4 term that's commonly used.
5 Q But you have no reason to think that he
6 means it in any way other than the normal meaning of
7 that term, do you, sir?
8 A I think it's a term of multiple
9 meanings. In this case I think it means what you've
10 suggested it means.
11 Q I thought it did too, and I hope to
12 avoid asking you going through the actual language.
13 And, Mr. Gates, let me show you a
14 document that has been previously marked as
15 Government Exhibit 377.
16 The second e-mail here refers to what
17 is attached as a final copy of the memo that was sent
18 to you for Think Week in November 1995.
19 (The document referred to was marked as
20 Government Exhibit 377 for identification and is
21 attached hereto.)
22 Q BY MR. BOIES: Do you recall receiving
23 this document, sir?
24 A No. What I recall about this document
25 is that it's already been marked as an exhibit and

1 that I spoke with Mr. Houck about it yesterday.
2 Q That may be so. My question to you is:
3 Do you recall receiving this -- let me make it
4 simple.
5 Did you receive this memo in or about
6 November of 1995?
7 A As I said before, for my Think Weeks I
8 get about three cardboard boxes of materials that
9 people put together for me. And in looking at this
10 memo, it's not a memo that I had seen before
11 Mr. Houck's deposition questions put to me yesterday.
12 Q So it's your testimony the first time
13 you saw this document was when Mr. Houck showed it to
14 you yesterday?
15 A That's right. It had a different
16 exhibit number then.
17 Q Let me ask you to go to page 5 of the
18 document which bears in the bottom right-hand corner
19 the Microsoft document production number ending 4683.
20 A Okay.
21 Q Do you see the heading "Shell
22 Integration"?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Do you see the second sentence where it
25 says, "We will bind the shell to the Internet

1 Explorer, so that running any other browser is a
2 jolting experience"?
3 A I see that.
4 Q Do you have any understanding as to
5 what was meant by that?
6 A I can guess.
7 Q Well, first, this is in a memo that is
8 entitled "How to Get 30 percent share in 12 Months";
9 correct?
10 A Let's take a look. Yeah, that's on the
11 first page.
12 Q And is it clear to you that that is
13 referring to getting a 30 percent share of the
14 browser market?
15 A I haven't read the document, but it
16 seems likely that's what it is.
17 Q Okay.
18 Now, do you have an understanding --
19 I'm not asking you to guess. But do you have an
20 understanding as to what is meant by the statement,
21 "We will bind the shell to the Internet Explorer, so
22 that running any other browser is a jolting
23 experience"?
24 A I don't know what he meant by it, but I
25 can tell you what it likely means.

1 Q Okay. I take it this is really how you
2 would have interpreted this when you received it; is
3 that fair?
4 A I didn't read it, so --
5 Q I said if you had received it, this is
6 how you would interpret it?
7 A I said I didn't read it. I actually --
8 I would have read the whole memo if I had received
9 it. I wouldn't have turned to that one page and just
10 looked at that one sentence. I would have read the
11 memo from the beginning page by page, and then I
12 probably would have understood it better than I do at
13 this moment.
14 Q If you do not have an understanding of
15 what is meant by it, you can tell me. If you do have
16 an understanding of what is meant by it, I would like
17 to have it.
18 A I don't know what he meant by it, but
19 I'd be glad to guess as to what it might mean.
20 Q I don't want you to guess. But if you
21 as the chief executive officer of Microsoft can tell
22 me how you would, in the ordinary course of your
23 business, interpret this statement, I would like to
24 have you do so.
25 MR. HEINER: Mr. Gates was prepared to

1 do that quite a while ago. That was an unnecessary
2 exchange.
3 Go ahead. You may answer.
4 THE WITNESS: He may be referring to
5 the fact that when you get a separate frame coming up
6 on the win -- on the screen, it's different than
7 having something take place in frame. And part of
8 our shell integration strategy going back all the way
9 to 1990 included the idea that as you navigated or
10 browsed through different media types, you didn't
11 have to have another frame come up because that --
12 that's sort of an artifact of having to think about
13 applications instead of objects.
14 And so as he looked at integrating the
15 browser and the shell together, we were going to
16 create a form of navigation optionally but as the
17 default where you don't switch frames as you navigate
18 the links from the shell to what's out on the
19 Internet back to what's in the local store.
20 Q BY MR. BOIES: Did anyone ever tell you
21 independent of this document in words or in substance
22 that Microsoft intended to bind the shell to the
23 Internet Explorer so that running any other browser
24 is a jolting experience?
25 A Well, certainly the idea of integrating

1 in a way that made a better browsing experience was
2 something we were talking about quite a bit. Those
3 words, no, I never heard anything along the lines of
4 those words.
5 Q The words that are in this document; is
6 what you're saying?
7 A That's right.
8 Q Okay.
9 Did Microsoft make any effort to
10 discourage Apple from writing in a JDK 1.2?
11 A That never would have come up. Apple
12 is not an application developer.
13 Q Let me -- let me back up.
14 Did Microsoft ever make an effort to
15 get Apple to discourage applications writers for
16 Apple's machines from writing in what you have
17 referred to as Sun's Java or using the Sun Java
18 runtimes?
19 A I'm sure there was discussion with
20 Apple about the fact that their unique operating
21 system capabilities wouldn't show through with the
22 least common denominator pure approach. Whether that
23 related specifically to JDK 1.2 or not, I can't say.
24 Q When you say you're sure there were
25 discussions, are you talking about discussions

1 between Microsoft representatives and Apple
2 representatives?
3 A Yes.
4 Q What was Microsoft's interest in having
5 Apple discourage applications writers for Apple's
6 operating system from using Java runtimes or JDK 1.2?

Here’s more:

17			Q	Let me ask you to look at the last
18 paragraph under the heading "Sun byte codes are bad
19 for them." And you say, quote,
20 "I want them to understand
21 that helping NCs and JAVA will push
22 us to do Windows and other software
23 in SUN byte codes even if we don't
24 rewrite them in JAVA," close quote.
25 Do you see that?

1 A Uh-huh.
2 Q When you say "I want them to
3 understand," are you referring to Intel?
4 A I think so.
5 Q Did Microsoft make any effort to
6 convince Intel not to help Sun and Java?
7 A Not that I know of.
8 Q Did you or anyone at Microsoft attempt
9 to convince Intel not to engage in any software
10 activity?
11 MR. HEINER: Objection.

Then again with Java:

	5			Q	And if they did, I take it it's your
6 testimony no one ever told you about it?
7 A That's right.
8 Q Did you or, to your knowledge, anyone
9 at Microsoft express concern to Intel about the
10 success of Java or what you have referred to in this
11 deposition as Java runtimes?
12 A From time to time we'd have general
13 discussions with Intel about things going on in the
14 industry. And I'm sure our views of the Java runtime
15 competition may have come up in some of those
16 discussions.
17 MR. BOIES: Could I have the question
18 and answer read back please?
19 (The following record was read:
20 "Q Did you or, to your
21 knowledge, anyone at Microsoft
22 express concern to Intel about the
23 success of Java or what you have
24 referred to in this deposition as
25 Java runtimes?

1 "A From time to time we'd
2 have general discussions with Intel
3 about things going on in the
4 industry. And I'm sure our views of
5 the Java runtime competition may have
6 come up in some of those
7 discussions.")
8 Q BY MR. BOIES: In those discussions,
9 did you or others from Microsoft express concern
10 about Java and Java runtime's popularity to Intel
11 representatives?
12 A I think it's likely in those general
13 discussions. We talked about some of the
14 opportunities and competitive things going on
15 including our view of what was going on in Java
16 runtime.
17 Q Did you tell representatives of Intel
18 or, to your knowledge, anyone from Microsoft tell
19 representatives of Intel that in Microsoft's opinion
20 the wide distribution of Java and Java runtimes were
21 incompatible with interests of both Intel and
22 Microsoft?
23 A Actually, there -- there's one aspect
24 of Java that could have an effect on Intel and would
25 have no effect on Microsoft. So it's completely

1 orthogonal. And I pointed out to them what that was.
2 And so I did think there was one thing they ought to
3 think about in terms of where the world of software
4 development was going. But it wasn't an issue that
5 related to Microsoft.
6 Q Irrespective of what you said about
7 that particular issue, did you or others from
8 Microsoft tell Intel in words or in substance that is
9 as a general matter, a general conclusion, the
10 popularity of Java and Java runtimes was not in your
11 joint interest? And joint interest, I mean Microsoft
12 and Intel.
13 A No. There was nothing about it that
14 related to any joint interest. There was one thing
15 about it that related to some of Intel's interests
16 and there were other things about it that related to
17 some of Microsoft's interests. But there's no
18 overlap between those two.
19 Q Let me put the question this way: Did
20 you or, to your knowledge, others from Microsoft tell
21 Intel that for whatever reasons you believed that the
22 widespread distribution of Java and Java runtimes was
23 inconsistent with both interests of Intel and
24 interests of Microsoft?
25 A Well, it's like you're trying to

1 rephrase what I said in a more inaccurate way. I
2 told you there's an aspect of it that I thought they
3 should think about that related to them only, that's
4 the byte code piece. And then there's an aspect of
5 it that relates to us only. So there's no end there,
6 there's just a piece that might have been of interest
7 to them that I articulated, and then there's the part
8 that relates strictly to us.
9 Q Let me take it in two pieces. Did you
10 tell Intel representatives that you believed that
11 there were reasons why the widespread distribution of
12 Java and Java runtimes were not in Intel's interests?
13 A Not in that general sense. I pointed
14 out the very specific aspect of it, the byte code
15 aspect, that I thought they ought to think about that
16 had no effect on us.
17 Q Did you tell Intel representatives that
18 there were things about the wide distribution of Java
19 and Java runtimes that Microsoft believed was not in
20 Microsoft's interest?
21 A It's likely that in the general
22 discussion the notion of some of the new competitive
23 activities including the Java runtime issues would
24 have come up in some discussions with Intel but
25 not -- not related to anything they were doing.

Right now, in 2020, Microsoft is trying to “wrest control” of Linux and “proprietary APIs” (or file systems, formats etc.) help this agenda.

“This anti-trust thing will blow over. We haven’t changed our business practices at all.”

Bill Gates

« 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




Samba logo

We support

End software patents


GNU project


EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com

Recent Posts