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

10.25.20

How Microsoft is Still Worse Than Google

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Microsoft at 4:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Google at least publishes extensions

Source PDF [PDF]

I have decided that we should not publish these extensions. We should wait until we have a way to do a high level of integration that will be harder for the likes of Notes, Wordperfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real advantage.

I have decided that we should not publish these extensions.

Summary: “I have decided that we should not publish these extensions. We should wait until we have a way to do a high level of integration that will be harder for the likes of Notes, Wordperfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real advantage.”

‘President Bill Gates’ Wants to Punish Not Only Google After Using “Extensions” to the Web to Reinforce Microsoft’s Monopoly (Antitrust Violations Are a Microsoft Thing)

Posted in Antitrust, Google, Microsoft at 3:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The latest “Bill says” puff piece — in a spectacular reversal of narratives — frames the biggest culprit as the biggest authority

Antitrus and Gates

President Bill? Attorney General Bill? Have satirical reversals become reality? The author of that piece is a longtime Microsoft booster, a bit like a PR “extension” inside the media.

“Another suggestion In this mail was that we can’t make our own unilateral extensions to HTML I was going to say this was wrong and correct this also.”

Bill Gates [PDF]

Another suggestion In this mail was that we can’t make our own unilateral extensions to HTML I was going to say this was wrong and correct this also.

Summary: In gross distortion of facts and of history and in a rather incredible fashion (very shameless and insulting) the corporate media tries to paint Bill Gates as an antitrust hero that will save the world from monopolies

THE FOLLOWING bits from the Bill Gates deposition are worth highlighting, seeing that a lot of people accuse Google of doing things that Microsoft was — and still is — more culpable of (as GitHub is pushing more proprietary 'extensions').

The “Q” is Boies (interrogator), “A” is Bill Gates (almost lawyer but a college dropout who says he's no lawyer), and Mr. Heiner is Bill Gates’ lawyer:



20 Q. Let me ask you to look next at an
21 exhibit marked Government Exhibit 392. The second
22 item here purports to be a message from you to Paul
23 Maritz and Brad Silverberg with copies to a number of
24 other people dated January 28, 1997, at 10:34 a.m.
25 Do you see that?
634





1 A. Yes.
2 (The document referred to was marked
3 by the court reporter as Government Exhibit 392 for
4 identification and is attached hereto.)
5 Q. BY MR. BOIES: Did you send this
6 message to Mr. Maritz and Mr. Silverberg and others
7 on or about January 28, 1997?
8 A. I don't remember doing so, but I have
9 no reason to doubt that I did.
10 Q. You say that there has been -- the
11 beginning of the document, the very beginning of the
12 document you say, "There has recently been an
13 exchange on e-mail with people in the Office group
14 about Office and HTML. In one piece of mail people
15 were suggesting that Office had to work equally well
16 with all browsers and that we shouldn't force Office
17 users to use our browser. This is wrong and I wanted
18 to correct this."
19 Do you see that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you send that message to Mr. Maritz
22 and Mr. Silverberg and others in or about January of
23 1997?
24 A. You already asked that and I told you I
25 don't remember sending it.
635





1 Q. Did you convey the substance of what is
2 here to Mr. Maritz and Mr. Silverberg in or about
3 January of 1997?
4 A. I don't know the time frame, but there
5 was a question for very advanced features in Office
6 that had to do with the fact that older browsers,
7 including our own older browsers, couldn't display
8 the information and should we therefore display it to
9 no one or what should we do about advance display
10 semantics. And I know in that case the issue came up
11 about should we support the advanced display
12 semantics at all.
13 Q. Is it your testimony, Mr. Gates, that
14 that is what you were talking about here?
15 A. Absolutely. That's what this
16 message -- I mean if you read it, that's what it is
17 about.
18 Q. This is a message that you don't recall
19 sending; is that correct?
20 A. I've read it today, but I don't recall
21 sending it, that's right.
22 Q. But what you're doing is you're
23 testifying under oath that when you say that you
24 should force Office users to use Microsoft's browser,
25 you were talking about what you just described; is
636





1 that your testimony?
2 A. I don't see that in the message.
3 Q. Well, you're saying here that Microsoft
4 should force Office users to use Microsoft's browser,
5 are you not, sir?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Well, sir, you say "In one piece of
8 mail people were suggesting that Office had to work
9 equally well with all browsers and that we shouldn't
10 force Office users to use our browser. This is wrong
11 and I wanted to correct this."
12 Is it your testimony under oath that
13 you are not saying that the assertion that you had
14 heard that Microsoft shouldn't force Office users to
15 use Microsoft's browser was wrong?
16 A. There's a sentence there that talks
17 about whether Office has to work equally well with
18 all browsers and because I'm talking about Trident
19 here, Trident was a set of technologies we were doing
20 to extend things so that you could work with Office
21 documents that are very rich documents in a new way
22 that no previous browser, including our own previous
23 browsers, was willing to display. And there was a
24 question of whether they should take advantage of
25 those Trident things or not. Some people were
637





1 questioning whether we should take advantage of those
2 Trident things and here I'm making very clear, and
3 all you have to do is read the complete e-mail, I'm
4 saying we should go ahead and take advantage of those
5 Trident things. Now, that is very different than
6 saying people are forced to use any browser. It's
7 just if you want the best experience in terms of
8 seeing those rich documents, what we're doing in
9 Trident I thought we should take advantage of.
10 Q. Now, sir, is it your testimony sitting
11 here under oath that when in the language that I have
12 quoted you wrote "This is wrong and I wanted to
13 correct this" relating to the previous sentence,
14 which had said "In one piece of mail people were
15 suggesting that Office had to work equally well with
16 all browsers and we shouldn't force Office users to
17 use our browser," you were talking about Trident? Is
18 that your testimony?
19 A. Well, I think you've mischaracterized
20 my testimony.
21 Q. All I'm asking is whether that is your
22 testimony. If you tell me that's not your testimony,
23 we go on. Is that what you're telling me, sir?
24 A. Are you trying to characterize my
25 previous testimony?
638





1 Q. I was trying to see whether we
2 understood your previous testimony.
3 A. Your characterization was wrong.
4 Q. Okay. In the second paragraph of this
5 exhibit you write "In one piece of mail people were
6 suggesting that Office had to work equally well with
7 all browsers and that we shouldn't force Office users
8 to use our browser. This is wrong and I wanted to
9 correct this." Does that statement relate to
10 Trident, sir?
11 A. I explained how it relates to Trident.
12 Q. So your answer is that that relates to
13 Trident; is that your testimony?
14 A. In order to know that, I read the
15 entire piece of e-mail and upon reading it, I know
16 that what that relates to is whether we should
17 exploit the advanced features of Trident so that
18 Office works particularly well with the new browser
19 from us with those Trident features.
20 Q. Mr. Gates, isn't it clear that the
21 discussion at the end of the memo about Trident is
22 about a different point than the point we've been
23 talking about?
24 A. Absolutely not.
25 Q. Well, sir, immediately after the
639





1 paragraph we've been talking about don't you write,
2 "Another suggestion in this mail was that we can't
3 make our own unilateral extensions to HTML. I was
4 going to say this was wrong and correct this also."
5 And then you go on to talk about Trident. Isn't that
6 what you wrote here?
7 A. I think you've correctly read some of
8 the words in the e-mail. We could go on and read
9 more of the words so you could understand why what
10 I've told you is correct.
11 Q. Is there anything in here that asserts
12 that forcing Office users to use Microsoft's browser
13 is limited to the Trident situation?
14 A. It's clearly about whether Office
15 should exploit HTML that takes advantage of Trident
16 and whether that's a good idea or not. That's what
17 this piece of e-mail is about.
18 Q. If that's all it's about, Mr. Gates,
19 why do you introduce the Trident discussion by saying
20 "Another suggestion in this mail is that we can't
21 make our own unilateral extensions to HTML. I was
22 going to say this was wrong and correct this also"?
23 Aren't you clearly saying this is an additional
24 point?
25 A. No. You're just trying to misread my
640





1 e-mail. It talks about Office.
2 Q. Yes, it certainly does talk about
3 Office. And it talks about forcing Office users to
4 use your browser; correct, sir?
5 A. No.
6 Q. It doesn't? When you say that somebody
7 is saying -- that you've seen an e-mail of people
8 saying "we shouldn't force Office users to use our
9 browser" and that this is wrong, you're not saying
10 that you should use Office to force users to use your
11 browser; is that what you're saying?
12 A. That was the most circular thing I've
13 ever heard.
14 Q. I think it was pretty circular
15 because --
16 A. You continue to not read the sentence
17 and look at the piece of e-mail. The question in
18 this e-mail is whether Office should work equally
19 well with all browsers. And it's talking about --
20 Q. Now, sir --
21 A. If you want to look further to
22 understand it --
23 Q. How about let me put a question.
24 MR. HEINER: Let me --
25 MR. BOIES: May I ask the witness what
641





1 question is he answering?
2 MR. HEINER: Whatever the last question
3 that was posed.
4 MR. BOIES: I want to know if he knows
5 what question he is answering.
6 THE WITNESS: Can you read back the
7 question?
8 Q. BY MR. BOIES: No. Can you tell me,
9 Mr. Gates, what question you're purporting to answer?
10 A. Your last question.
11 Q. Do you know what it is?
12 A. Could I make it as convoluted as you
13 did? No.
14 Q. Can you tell me what question you're
15 answering?
16 A. I can't repeat back that convoluted a
17 question. I could ask the reporter to.
18 Q. Can you tell me the substance of the
19 question you're answering?
20 MR. HEINER: Mr. Boies, pose the next
21 question.
22 MR. BOIES: Okay.
23 MR. HEINER: Let me suggest one. Ask
24 him about the first sentence, which is the subject
25 matter being introduced.
642





1 Q. BY MR. BOIES: Okay. Actually, I've
2 read the first sentence, but I'll read it again. The
3 first sentence, which is one paragraph, says "There
4 has recently been an exchange on e-mail with people
5 in the Office group about Office and HTML."
6 Second paragraph says "In one piece of
7 mail people were suggesting that Office had to work
8 equally well with all browsers and that we shouldn't
9 force Office users to use our browser. This is wrong
10 and I wanted to correct this."
11 Third paragraph says "Another
12 suggestion in this mail was that we can't make our
13 own unilateral extensions to HTML. I was going to
14 say this was wrong and correct this also."
15 Now, have I read correctly the first
16 three paragraphs of this memo, Mr. Gates?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And is it your testimony that when you
19 said that the e-mail suggesting that Office had to
20 work equally well with all browsers and that
21 Microsoft shouldn't force Office users to use
22 Microsoft's browser was wrong, that all you were
23 talking about there was Trident; is that your
24 testimony?
25 A. I'm not sure what you mean all I was
643





1 talking about. This e-mail is about Office and HTML.
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. There is a new extension to HTML being
4 created in Trident. There was a question of whether
5 Office could take advantage of it, which meant that
6 it would take advantage of those new browsers in a
7 better way than it would take advantage of our old
8 browsers or other people's browsers without those
9 extensions. I was suggesting here, and it's totally
10 a mischaracterization to suggest that that third
11 paragraph isn't totally in line with it, that we
12 should take advantage of those Trident HTML
13 extensions and, therefore, Office documents would
14 look better, at least for those users.
15 Q. And is it your testimony -- and all I'm
16 trying to do is clarify your testimony, Mr. Gates,
17 because once the testimony is done, then the trier of
18 fact can decide what credibility to give it. All I'm
19 trying to do is identify it. And you have said that
20 the extensions to HTML relates to Trident; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, what I'm trying to find out is
23 whether these extensions to HTML that relate to
24 Trident is also the only point of your statement that
25 you should force Office users to use your browser?
644





1 A. That's a sentence fragment here. What
2 people were saying was if we took unique advantage of
3 Trident, wouldn't people feel like they needed to
4 upgrade to Trident. And I said, hey, if that's the
5 only way they can see the advanced document
6 capability, then fine.
7 Q. Mr. Gates, I mean that's not what this
8 e-mail says.
9 A. We certainly know what the e-mail says.
10 Q. Yes, exactly. And I don't mean to be
11 disrespectful here, but aren't you doing what we
12 talked about before here, just trying to substitute
13 different words for the words that you actually wrote
14 that you think will sound better in the context of
15 this litigation?
16 A. I've explained to you what this e-mail
17 is about. You don't seem to like the facts.
18 Q. Mr. Gates, my question, and if the
19 answer is yes or no or I don't understand your
20 question, you can give me that testimony. But is the
21 explanation that you're giving me now of this
22 document an explanation where you're trying to use
23 words differently now because of the litigation than
24 you used them back in 1997?
25 A. No.
645





1 Q. Not at all, sir?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Do you feel more uncomfortable
4 admitting in a deposition in this case that you were
5 trying to force Office users to use your browser than
6 you did back in January of 1997?
7 A. You're mischaracterizing the e-mail.
8 Q. Well, let me ask you a question
9 independent of the e-mail.
10 Do you feel more uncomfortable with the
11 characterization that Microsoft is forcing Office
12 users to use Microsoft's browser today than you did
13 back in January, 1997?
14 A. I've never been comfortable with
15 lawyers mischaracterizing the truth.
16 Q. Well, Mr. Gates, could I have my
17 question answered?
18 A. I answered it.
19 MR. BOIES: Would you read the question
20 back, please.
21 (Record read.)
22 Q. BY MR. BOIES: Could I have an answer
23 to that question, sir?
24 MR. HEINER: Objection.
25 THE WITNESS: My view of lawyers
646





1 mischaracterizing something has not changed.
2 Q. BY MR. BOIES: Mr. Gates, I'm not
3 talking about your view of lawyers mischaracterizing
4 things. I'm talking about your view of the use of
5 language. You've got a document in here in which you
6 talk about forcing Office users to use your browser.
7 You say "In one piece of mail people were suggesting
8 that Office had to work equally well with all
9 browsers and we shouldn't force Office users to use
10 our browser." You go on to say to the top executives
11 of your company, "This is wrong."
12 Now, my simple question is whether
13 you're more concerned about the use of those words
14 today than you were back in January of 1997, whether
15 this litigation is influencing the care and
16 precision, if you want to put it that way, with which
17 you are determined to use words?
18 A. I'm not sure what I'm comparing to
19 what.
20 Q. Okay, let me try to be clear. In
21 January of 1997 you wrote this e-mail --
22 A. In total.
23 Q. In total. And at the time you wrote
24 this e-mail, you didn't have any expectations it was
25 going to show up in this litigation, did you?
647





1 A. I'm not sure what you mean by that.
2 Q. What I mean is you thought this was a
3 private e-mail. You thought you were writing to your
4 executives and you didn't think anybody outside the
5 company was going to review this and do what I'm
6 doing now, which is asking you questions about it,
7 right?
8 A. Oh, I think the general notion that any
9 e-mail I write might be reviewed at some point is one
10 that I've understood certainly since 1990.
11 Q. So it is your testimony that taking
12 this e-mail in its entirety, that you today are
13 entirely comfortable that the memo, the e-mail in its
14 entirety, is a fair and accurate statement of your
15 views; is that correct?
16 A. If somebody takes the trouble to
17 understand it, yes.
18 Q. That is, if somebody reads this
19 document all the way through, takes the trouble to
20 figure out what is here, you say that's a fair and
21 accurate statement of your views; correct?
22 A. Views on what?
23 Q. Views on the things that you're talking
24 about in the memo.
25 Let me try to approach it a different
648





1 way. Sometimes when people write things after the
2 fact, they say "I wish I hadn't written it that way,
3 that just isn't accurate." Or "I overstated it," or
4 "I got it wrong." Are you saying that about this
5 document?
6 A. I guess I can say that if I realized
7 how you might misinterpret the thing, I would have
8 put a little footnote in here for you to help make
9 sure you didn't misinterpret it.
10 Q. And that's because you think that what
11 I'm doing, as you've said before, is
12 mischaracterizing what's here; correct?
13 A. Several of your questions I believe
14 have mischaracterized it.
15 Q. Now, suppose, Mr. Gates, that you have
16 to worry not about what I think about this memo,
17 which is really irrelevant, but only about what the
18 trier of fact thinks about this memo. Assume that a
19 neutral trier of fact is going to look at this memo
20 in a fair and balanced way. Would you say to that
21 neutral trier of fact "I really shouldn't have
22 written this. This really doesn't reflect my views.
23 I made a mistake"? Or would you say "If you read the
24 whole thing and read it fairly, that's what I
25 believe"?
649





1 A. If they understood what it was about, I
2 wouldn't feel any need to amend or change it.
3 Q. Okay, sir, that's -- I mean on that
4 basis, I think we can leave it to the trier of fact
5 to determine what it means. Because I think the one
6 thing -- you believe this memo is clear, don't you?
7 A. I don't know what you mean by that.
8 You've made it clear that somebody can misinterpret
9 this memo. Whether that is being done maliciously or
10 not, I don't know. So now I understand that somebody
11 who doesn't understand the subject matter of the memo
12 can misinterpret it. In particular you can
13 misinterpret what is meant there.
14 Q. Well, you've told us that extensions to
15 HTML that you are referring to here were the Trident
16 extensions, haven't you, sir? That's what you've
17 said?
18 A. And general principals about HTML
19 extensions, yes.
20 MR. HEINER: Will the Antitrust
21 Division of the United States, when it tries this
22 case, present information to the trier of fact so
23 that the trier of fact understands what HTML is, what
24 Trident is and so forth, or will it present snippets
25 and fragments as it did in the fall in the consent
650





1 decree case?
2 MR. BOIES: I believe the trier of fact
3 will have this entire document and we will ask the
4 trier of fact to read this entire document and we
5 will present to the trier of fact -- and if we don't,
6 you will -- everything that either of us can think of
7 that relates to the subject matter of this.
8 One of the things about a trial is we
9 both get our shot and if you think there is anything
10 that you can say to the trier of fact that will get
11 the trier of fact to interpret this differently than
12 I have, take your best shot.
13 MR. HEINER: All I'm saying is that
14 even the plaintiff in an action has an obligation as
15 an officer of the court to present facts in a summary
16 judgment motion, in a complaint, in a motion for
17 preliminary injunction or at the trial so that the
18 court can understand the full set of facts.
19 MR. BOIES: We will continue to do
20 that.

Notice how evasive Gates is — to the point of trying to attack the interrogator himself (signs of Hubris).

10.21.20

Ways and Means to Reduce One’s Dependency on Google’s Various Monopolies and Near-Monopolies

Posted in Antitrust, Free/Libre Software, Google, GPL, Microsoft, Servers at 10:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

LibertyBits 2019 - 18 - Richard Stallman - Mass Surveillance
Richard Stallman just weeks before he was pushed out of his office to help MIT save face

Summary: Getting rid of Google means a lot more than embracing DumbDumbGo (DDG) or some other sites that spy just like Google; we’re taking stock of some options

THE legal action against Google wasn’t misguided. It was likely selective, however, guided in part by Microsoft lobbyists (years in the making). Putting Microsoft’s role aside, Google is a problem. Monopolies are a problem. Market dominance reduces the incentive to improve and can harm people in a variety of ways.

Maybe by mere coincidence, only hours before the lawsuit was unveiled Planet OpenSUSE had this post entitled “Migrating away from Google services” (we’ll come back to it later).

“One popular alternative to Google or rather a YouTube sieve (offering the same material sans the surveillance and ads) recently shut down.”Now, let’s consider practical solutions to the Google problem. Monopolies like YouTube for instance…

Yesterday Debian announced its “donation for Peertube development,” noting that “[t]his year’s iteration of the Debian annual conference, DebConf20, had to be held online, and while being a resounding success, it made clear to the project our need to have a permanent live streaming infrastructure for small events held by local Debian groups. As such, Peertube, a FLOSS video hosting platform, seems to be the perfect solution for us.”

One popular alternative to Google or rather a YouTube sieve (offering the same material sans the surveillance and ads) recently shut down. APIs and lawyers had also similarly killed Scroogle (not to be mistaken for Microsoft’s rogue AstroTurfing campaign). We’re talking about invidio.us here, being a YouTube alternative. But it was Free software-based (GNU Affero General Public License, version 3.0), so other instances of it still exist. It should be noted that some are unsavoury and are linked to bad people, some are not.

yewtu.be is one alternative of interest — at least until Google’s lawyers shut it down using threats. In yewtu.be one can escape annoying Google ads, spying (JavaScript) and spurious pop-ups urging viewers to “log in” (it got a lot worse recently). yewtu.be also supports embedding videos, searching (however limited, better insert direct YouTube URLs into the search box as a starting point).

Scroogle screenshotRegarding search, the decentralised approach works better because Startpage turned into a scam; along with other so-called ‘private’ search engines it was quietly passed into the claws of surveillance giants. The same is true for DumbDumbGo (DDG), where many people still dumbly go to spew/infuse personal information (because of empty promises and plenty of misleading marketing campaigns). SearX instances keep going up and down, but the one which nowadays works reliably (and has worked for months) is searx.feneas.org (not recommended on the basis of deep research into how they handle their data).

Google News is a near-monopoly when it comes to indexing news in (almost) real-time. I’ve never managed to find a solid and reliable alternative to it. Google News isn’t consistent either (more and more spammy results in it over time), so I rely on it a lot less. Google News is pretty much the only Google service I cannot fully get rid of.

Apparently many people out there still rely a great deal on Blogspot, GMail and various other non-essential ‘services’ (to which plenty of good alternatives exist). People who can’t figure out how to get rid of Blogspot and GMail are probably a ‘lost cause’ when it comes to ridding them of Google. Seriously, how hard can it be to just open an E-mail account somewhere like GMX or ProtonMail? Then telling people, over time, about the new address? I myself haven’t had such issues since 2003 when I registered my own domain and managed all my mail there (about 20 E-mail accounts to separate the wheat from spam/chaff, mostly with aliases).

Going back to the post from Planet OpenSUSE, it says this:

My inbox tells me I started using GMail around 2004. The oldest mail I can find in my archive is from 16 years ago. After Gmail, Google Photos, Keep, Docs, Drive and Fit followed.

I have reasons to stop. Whether your reasons are privacy, the U.S. as a data harbor, GMail becoming sluggish, karma for killing Inbox, fear about getting your account locked, or you found a better email provider, the objective of this post is not to convince you about my reasons but to help you with a migration plan and showing you alternatives.

Breaking the dependency on Google services is really hard. This dependency was a showstopper and motivator at the same time. If you are locked-in at this level, something is wrong.

This is correct. Take time and invest effort to become technically and technologically independent, or at least less prone to abuse (censorship, surveillance and so on).

Google isn’t the most harmful company to us GNU/Linux/BSD users who value software freedom. But Google poses a great threat to privacy — probably a more potent and long-lasting threat (in that particular domain/aspect) than Microsoft ever will.

Like we’ve said countless times before, getting rid of Microsoft isn’t enough. If we get rid of one brand only to be abused by another, then we’re simply not aiming correctly. To a lot of people out there, their ‘activism’ (or principle) boils down to “I’ll swap Microsoft with Apple” (basically defecting between brands). Right now in Manchester they have a massive marketing campaign (billboards and all) associating iPhone with “privacy”; we always get a kick out of it, as if iPhone users covering their faces with a tracking device (with microphone and multiple cameras, not to mention back doors) is “privacy”… Apple is just ‘pulling a DumbDumbGo’.

Image credit: By Ewald, Fair use

[Meme] US Department of Justice Should Have Taken on Microsoft Again, Not Google

Posted in Antitrust, Google, Microsoft at 3:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Mike Rowe versus Mike Rowe soft: has to get pc with windows on it, says google is worse because you must use google?

Summary: When lobbying, connections and political sway determine the actions of the American government it’s hardly surprising that Bill Gates gets the Trump administration to fight for him (to make him even richer)

“Some of the possible anti-trust remedies against Alphabet / Google include cessation of payments to rivals for making Google the default search engine. That would pull the plug on Mozilla’s non-coding festivities and maybe kill the whole project, not just the cruft,” an associate has told us this morning.

10.20.20

Bill Gates: “I’m Not a Lawyer” (He Dropped Out of College, Where He Studied Law Before and After Breaking the Law Chronically)

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Deception, Hardware, Law, Microsoft at 8:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Wikipedia on IANAL

Summary: How Microsoft blackmailed other companies into supporting nothing but Microsoft and Windows; Bill Gates repeatedly lied to the interrogators about it, then said “I’m not a lawyer” (IANAL) even though he went to college to become one, just like his father who died last month

THE Bill Gates deposition contained the following bit, which in retrospect sheds a lot of light on current affairs.

How so? Read on: (we’ve also highlighted the “I’m not a lawyer” part and it’s mostly about Intel)


1 Q Did you ask Intel to keep you apprised
2 of what software work Intel was doing?
3 A I think I made that request in vein on
4 several occasions, nothing ever came of it.
5 Q Is it your testimony that they refused
6 to keep you apprised of the software work they were
7 doing?
8 A No. I just said to them that if they
9 would -- whatever software work they were doing that
10 was intended to help Windows, they should talk to us
11 about it early on if they wanted to have the highest
12 probability that it would, in fact, achieve that
13 goal.
14 And unfortunately, we never achieved
15 that result; that is, they would do things related to
16 Windows that without talking to us in advance, and
17 then once they had done the work, there would be some
18 incompatibilities between what they had done and
19 Windows itself.
20 Q When is the last time that you asked
21 Intel to keep you apprised of what software work they
22 were doing?
23 A I'm not sure.
24 Q Approximately when?
25 A I don't know.
485





1 Q Was it within the last year?
2 A I don't know.
3 Q Was it within the last two years?
4 A I honestly don't know.
5 Q Was it within the last three years?
6 A There's probably one instance where I
7 asked them to tell us about things they were doing
8 related to Windows.
9 Q Did you or others, to your knowledge,
10 from Microsoft tell Intel that if Intel began to
11 compete with Microsoft, Microsoft would be forced to
12 begin to compete with Intel?
13 A No.
14 Q Not at all, sir; never said that in
15 words or in substance?
16 A No.
17 Q To your knowledge did anyone else from
18 Microsoft ever say that?
19 A I'm not aware of anybody saying that.
20 Q If anybody had said that, would you
21 consider that to be inconsistent with company policy?
22 MR. HEINER: Objection.
23 THE WITNESS: I'm confused. Intel and
24 Microsoft are not in the same businesses, so there's
25 no policy about one of our people suggesting that
486





1 we're going to go into the chip business.
2 Q BY MR. BOIES: Was it part of what you
3 wanted to accomplish, Mr. Gates, to be to keep Intel
4 and Microsoft in separate businesses?
5 A No.
6 Q Did you ever take any action intended
7 to accomplish that?
8 A No.
9 Q Did you or, to your knowledge, anyone
10 from Microsoft ever tell people at Intel that
11 Microsoft would hold up support for Intel's
12 microprocessors if Intel didn't cooperate with
13 Microsoft in areas that Microsoft wanted Intel's
14 cooperation in?
15 A When we saw Intel doing the low quality
16 work that was creating incompatibilities in Windows
17 that served absolutely no Intel goal, we suggested to
18 Intel that that should change. And it became
19 frustrating to us because it was a long period of
20 time where they kept doing work that we thought,
21 although it was intended to be positive in the
22 Windows environment, it was actually negative. And
23 we did point out the irony of how while we seemed to
24 communicate with them on microprocessor issues and
25 yet they seemed on the areas where they were trying
487





1 to enhance Windows that the communication worked very
2 poorly.
3 Q Did you or others on behalf of
4 Microsoft tell Intel that Microsoft would hold up
5 support for Intel's microprocessors if Intel did not
6 cooperate with Microsoft?
7 A No.
8 Q No one ever told Intel that, to your
9 knowledge?
10 A That's right.
11 Q Let me see if I can refresh your
12 recollection.
13 Did you or anyone from Microsoft ever
14 tell Intel representatives that Microsoft would hold
15 up support for Intel's microprocessors if Intel
16 didn't cooperate with Microsoft on the Internet?
17 A No.
18 Q Did you or anyone from Microsoft ever
19 tell representatives of Intel that Intel would not
20 cooperate -- that if Intel would not cooperate with
21 Microsoft on communications programs, Microsoft would
22 hold up support for Intel's microprocessors?
23 A No.
24 Q Did you or to your knowledge anyone
25 from Microsoft ever tell Intel that you wanted Intel
488





1 to reduce its support of Netscape?
2 MR. HEINER: Objection.
3 THE WITNESS: It's very likely that our
4 sales force that calls on Intel as a software
5 customer talked to them about their web site and
6 their browsers. And they may have tried to convince
7 them to use our browser in terms of their internal
8 efforts. It's kind of a knit, but I think it's
9 possible.
10 Q Did you, Mr. Gates, ever yourself try
11 to get Intel to reduce its support of Netscape?
12 A I'm not aware of any work that Intel
13 did in supporting Netscape. They may have used their
14 browser internally or one of their server things, but
15 that's -- that's not really support. So I'm not sure
16 of any support they were giving to Netscape.
17 Q You may mean that to answer my
18 question, but I want to be clear.
19 It is your testimony that you're not
20 aware of any instance where you asked anybody at
21 Intel to reduce the support that Intel was providing
22 to Netscape; is that your testimony?
23 A No. I may have asked -- I may -- and I
24 don't remember it -- but I may have talked to them
25 about their internal browser use. I don't think so,
489





1 but I may have. And I may have talked to them about
2 their web servers and what they were using, but I
3 don't think so.
4 MR. HEINER: We would like to take one
5 last break here at some point, and we'll go through
6 until 4:00.
7 MR. BOIES: Okay.
8 MR. HEINER: Okay.
9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:26.
10 We're going off the record.
11 (Recess.)
12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:36.
13 We're going back on the record.
14 Q BY MR. BOIES: Mr. Gates, you're
15 familiar with a company called RealNetworks, are you
16 not?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Did you ever have any discussions with
19 any representative of RealNetworks concerning what
20 products RealNetworks should or should not offer or
21 distribute?
22 A No.
23 Q Microsoft signed two contracts with
24 RealNetworks, did it not, sir?
25 A I have no idea. I thought it was one.
490





1 Q RealNetworks was previously called
2 Progressive Networks; correct, sir?
3 A Right.
4 Q In the contract or contracts, if there
5 was more than one, between Microsoft and
6 RealNetworks, was there any restriction on what
7 services RealNetworks could provide to competitors of
8 Microsoft?
9 A I've never looked at those contracts.
10 Q Did you participate at all in those
11 contracts either the negotiation of those contracts
12 or discussions concerning those contracts prior to
13 the time they were entered into?
14 A I knew that Muglia and Maritz were
15 talking with Progressive about some kind of deal, but
16 I didn't know what was in the deal.
17 Q Did you know anything about what was in
18 the deal?
19 A I knew there was an investment piece.
20 I knew there was some code licensing in it. That's
21 about all.
22 Q At the time that Microsoft was
23 negotiating the contract or contracts with
24 RealNetworks -- and I'll refer to it as RealNetworks
25 even though at the time it was referred to as
491





1 Progressive Networks -- did you consider that company
2 to be a competitor of Microsoft?
3 A Not -- I think I was confused about
4 what RealNetworks -- what their plans were, and I
5 wasn't sure if they were a competitor or not.
6 Q Was there a time when you did become
7 convinced that they were a competitor?
8 A Yes.
9 Q When was that?
10 A When Rob Glaser appeared in Washington,
11 D.C.
12 Q To testify before a Congressional
13 committee?
14 A Senate, yes.
15 Q What led you to conclude from
16 Mr. Glaser's testimony that RealNetworks was a
17 competitor of Microsoft?
18 A It was nothing in his testimony.
19 Q Why did you become convinced at the
20 time of his testimony that RealNetworks was a
21 competitor of Microsoft?
22 A Well, because he went out of his way to
23 lie about us, I sort of thought, "Hum, he must be a
24 competitor."
25 Q When you say he went out of his way to
492





1 lie about you, when was that?
2 A That was at the press interview
3 surrounding the testimony -- maybe the testimony
4 itself, I'm not sure. I've never seen a transcript.
5 Q Did you ever personally have a
6 conversation with Mr. Glaser about his business?
7 A A long, long time ago when Rob was just
8 getting started I think there was one meeting that I
9 had with Rob. I haven't met with him since then.
10 Q Was that meeting before or after the
11 contract between RealNetworks and Microsoft that you
12 say that you know about?
13 A If you mean the contract where we
14 invested in Progressive, it was years before it and
15 not at all related to it.
16 Q When was the contract in which you
17 invested in Progressive Networks or RealNetworks?
18 A I'm not sure. I'd guess it's about a
19 year ago.
20 Q Did you have a conversation with
21 Mr. Glaser a few days after that agreement was
22 signed?
23 A Now that you ask me that, maybe I did.
24 Maybe I did. I think we may have had a short
25 meeting.
493





1 Q And did you in that meeting tell
2 Mr. Glaser in words or in substance how you thought
3 he should limit his business?
4 A Absolutely not.
5 Q Not in any way, sir?
6 A Not in any way.
7 Q Did you tell him he ought to get out of
8 the base streaming media platform business?
9 A No.
10 Q Did anyone ever tell you that
11 Mr. Glaser had said he would get out of the base
12 streaming media platform business?
13 A No.
14 Q Did Mr. Maritz ever tell you that
15 Mr. Glaser's stated plan was that he would get out of
16 the base streaming media platform business?
17 A As far as I know, we didn't know what
18 Rob's plans were.
19 Q Did you ever try to find out what those
20 plans were, sir?
21 A No.
22 Q Were those plans important to you?
23 A To me personally? No.
24 Q Were they important to Microsoft?
25 A On a relative basis, I'd say no.
494





1 Q Well, I suppose on a relative basis a
2 business as big as Microsoft, I don't know what would
3 be important, but --
4 A I can tell you.
5 Q -- but on a non-relative basis?
6 A I can tell --
7 Q Yes. Tell me what would be important
8 to Microsoft on a relative basis.
9 A Improvements in Windows, improvements
10 in Office, breakthroughs in research, breakthroughs
11 in Back Office.
12 Q How about browsers? On a relative
13 basis would that be important -- was that important
14 to Microsoft?
15 A To the degree it relates to Windows,
16 yes.
17 Q What about Java or Java runtime? Was
18 that on a relative basis important to Microsoft?
19 A To the degree it related to Windows,
20 yes.
21 Q Let me ask you to look at a document
22 that we have marked Government Exhibit 379. This
23 purports to be an e-mail from Paul Maritz. You are
24 not shown on this as receiving a copy. The portion
25 I'm particularly interested in is the last full
495





1 paragraph that says, quote,
2 "Rob's stated plan is that
3 he will get out of the base streaming
4 media platform business, and focus on
5 higher level solutions, hosting, and
6 content aggregation, and says that
7 his goal is now to get us to get his
8 base technology as widespread as
9 possible," close quote.
10 Do you see that?
11 A Uh-huh.
12 (The document referred to was marked as
13 Government Exhibit 379 for identification and is
14 attached hereto.)
15 Q BY MR. BOIES: Did anyone ever tell
16 you, as Mr. Maritz writes here, that Mr. Glaser had
17 said that his stated plan was that he would get out
18 of the base streaming media platform business?
19 A No.
20 Q Did you or, to your knowledge, anyone
21 from Microsoft ever tell Mr. Glaser that he should
22 get out of the base streaming media platform
23 business?
24 A No.
25 Q Okay.
496





1 You are aware, are you not, sir, that
2 one of the issues in this case is the extent to which
3 operating systems and browsers are or are not
4 separate products?
5 MR. HEINER: Objection.
6 Mischaracterizes the allegations of the complaint, I
7 believe.
8 MR. BOIES: Well, if the witness tells
9 me that he doesn't think that's an issue in the case,
10 he can so tell me.
11 THE WITNESS: I'm not a lawyer, so I
12 think it's very strange for me to opine on what's an
13 issue in the case. As far as I know, the issues in
14 the case are not -- are something that you decide,
15 and I don't claim to have any expertise at all.
16 Q BY MR. BOIES: And if you don't know,
17 that's okay. But one of the things that I want to
18 understand from you is whether your understanding,
19 which is important to my next line of questions, is
20 that the issue of whether or not browsers are or are
21 not a separate product from the operating system is
22 in this case.
23 MR. HEINER: Objection. What operating
24 system? What browsers? You referred to "the
25 operating system."
497





1 MR. BOIES: You want me to stop. All
2 right. I --
3 MR. HEINER: No. I want you to ask the
4 question but with specific specificity.
5 MR. BOIES: I've asked the question.
6 If he says he doesn't understand this question,
7 again, we put it down and then it's there for people
8 to look at later.
9 MR. HEINER: That's fine. You can do
10 that. And I, as his counsel, can pose an objection.
11 MR. BOIES: Yeah. But you can't pose
12 questions to me particularly when you're trying to
13 get the witness out at 4:00.
14 MR. HEINER: I can.
15 MR. BOIES: Not questions to me.
16 Q Mr. Gates -- you can put in an
17 objection, I'm not trying to keep you from putting in
18 an objection.
19 Mr. Gates, do you understand that the
20 issue of whether or not browsers are a separate
21 product or are not a separate product from the
22 operating system is an issue in this case?
23 A I don't consider myself someone who
24 could say if that's an issue in this case or not.
25 Q Have you participated in any way in
498





1 trying to get Microsoft personnel to use language
2 that would suggest that browsers and operating
3 systems are not separate products?
4 A I have no idea what you mean by that.
5 Q Well, have you seen e-mails that urge
6 people within Microsoft not to talk about browsers as
7 if they were separate from the operating system?
8 A I don't recall seeing any such e-mail.
9 Q Are you aware of any anybody within
10 Microsoft who has asserted, either in an e-mail or
11 otherwise, that people ought to not talk about
12 browsers as if they were separate from the operating
13 system?
14 A I don't remember any such e-mail.
15 Q Has Microsoft tried to get companies to
16 agree to statements that Internet Explorer comprises
17 part of the operating system of Windows 95 and
18 Windows 98?
19 A I know it's a true statement, but I'm
20 not aware of us doing anything to try to get anyone
21 else to endorse the statement.
22 Q You're not aware of any effort by
23 Microsoft to get non-Microsoft companies to endorse
24 the statement that Internet Explorer comprises part
25 of the operating system of Windows; is that what
499





1 you're saying?
2 A I'm not aware of such efforts.
3 Q Do you know whether Microsoft has made
4 any efforts to include language like that in any of
5 its license agreements?
6 A No, I don't.
7 Q Do you know why Microsoft might do
8 that?
9 MR. HEINER: Objection.
10 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure.
11 Q BY MR. BOIES: Do you recognize that
12 OEMs have a need to acquire the Windows operating
13 system that Microsoft licenses?
14 A What do you mean by OEM? Is it a
15 tautology because of the way you're defining it?
16 Q Well, if you take IBM and Compaq and
17 Dell, Gateway and some other companies, those are
18 commonly referred to as OEMs or PC manufacturers;
19 correct, sir?
20 A No. The term "OEM" would be quite a
21 bit broader than that. OEMs used means original
22 equipment manufacturer.
23 Q I see.
24 And does OEM have a specialized meaning
25 in your business to refer to people that supply
500





1 personal computers?
2 A No. It usually means our licensees.
3 Q And do your licensees, in part, supply
4 personal computers, sir?
5 A Some of our licensees.
6 Q The licensees to whom you license
7 Windows are suppliers of personal computers, are they
8 not, sir?
9 A If you exclude Windows CE and depending
10 on how you talk about workstations and servers.
11 Q So that if we can get on common ground,
12 the licensees for Windows 95 and Windows 98 would be
13 companies that you would recognize as personal
14 computer manufacturers; is that correct?
15 A Yeah. Almost all the licensees of
16 Windows 95 and Windows 98 are personal computer
17 manufacturers. Some are not, but the overwhelming
18 majority are.

Years later Gates said he was on a "Jihad" against Intel's support for Linux (apparently it's perfectly OK for a self-described "philanthropist" to speak like that). How little has changed since…

Microsoft Has Not Changed Since Being Investigated (and Prosecuted) for Crimes at a Federal Level

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Deception, Microsoft at 8:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

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

Bill Gates

1000000 questions in a row: Corporate media

Summary: The media keeps telling us a bunch of worthless junk about Gates “saving the world” and Microsoft becoming a “nice” and “gentle” (or “soft”) company, but nothing could be further from the truth

THE timing of the Bill Gates deposition series seems apt. Microsoft is committing the very same crimes, as noted for instance a few days ago in this article (publisher infiltrated by Bill Gates some years ago, to the point where they removed Gates critics):

The Verge on Vista 10

People who insist that Microsoft has changed often turn out to be receiving Microsoft’s money (like Deb Icaza at OSI for instance). Those who claim that “GAFA” is the real problem have successfully been indoctrinated by the worst abuser out there. With the Linux Foundation thoroughly bribed as well as infiltrated, nowadays we see the same in the OSI, which took Microsoft’s bribes about a year afterwards.

“In the coming days we’ll continue unearthing more old stuff from the antitrust days (before the concept of antitrust became eternally fossilised).”We’re not exactly optimistic about the whole thing. Microsoft and Gates keep corrupting their competitors and critics. Like the cult they are, they accept nothing but their own way and the concept of competition isn’t tolerated. In the coming days we’ll continue unearthing more old stuff from the antitrust days (before the concept of antitrust became eternally fossilised).

People With God Complex Must Never be Allowed in Positions of Power

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft at 5:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Get me into that and goddam, we’ll make so much money!”

Bill Gates, Microsoft

Related: Bill Gates Said He Was on a “Jihad” Against GNU/Linux, But GNU/Linux Users/Developers Engaged in Self-Defense Are Foul-Mouthed ‘Microsoft Haters’? | Bill Gates: “Where Are We on This Jihad?” (Against Linux at Intel) | Reminder: Bill Gates Called for “Jihad” (His Word) Both Before and After Being Grilled for Crimes | Bill Gates Deposition: Gates Keeps Referring to His Attacks on Competitors (Linux Included) as “Jihad” and Still Lies About Illegal Contracts | The Supposedly ‘Soft’ Bill Gates Interrogated About What Was Called His “Jihad” | Bill Gates Refers to His Business as “Jihad” and Accuses Java of Being a “Religion” With “Rabid” Supporters

Jimmy Neutron meme: It's mine, mine, mine. Bill, not everything must be controlled by you.

Summary: The attack on Linus Torvalds — an attack which at his own expense/peril he fails to recognise/acknowledge — seeks to put both projects that he founded right in Microsoft’s palm

“WHAT’S mine is mine and what’s yours is mine, too…”

So goes the motto at Microsoft, shows the Bill Gates deposition. They cannot grasp the concept of competition, let alone fair competition. Independent media is also an anathema, which is why both Gates and Microsoft bribe publishers (sometimes to oust their critics and delete articles critical of them… as if they’re “blasphemous”). They increasingly control Linux through the Linux Foundation and increasingly control Git through GitHub (which is where they want Linux to go).

“They cannot grasp the concept of competition, let alone fair competition.”Unfortunately, Mr. Torvalds is unable or unwilling to wake up and smell the coffee. Companies that want him powerless or retired (same effect) are taking over his projects and all they have in mind is proprietary software with surveillance, not Free software and not even Open Source — a term that increasingly means nothing to these people. Torvalds couldn’t have lost sight of what Microsoft did to Nokia, once the pride of his home country (and city). If someone can do anything at this point, regarding Git and Linux at least, it’s their creator, not his so-called ‘boss’ who thinks Microsoft is like a "puppy". One can imagine what he thinks of Bill Gates…

“He [Bill Gates] acted like a spoiled kid, which is what he was.”

Ed Roberts, Gates’ employer at MITS in the 1970′s (Atlanta Journal-Costitution, 04-27-97)

Bill Gates Explains How Microsoft and Apple Leverage Software Patents in Their Cross-Licensing Deals (to Perpetuate Duopoly/Shared Monopoly)

Posted in Antitrust, Apple, Bill Gates, Microsoft, Patents at 12:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The princess and the frog so very much in love?

Frog

Summary: A look back at Apple’s and Microsoft’s use or misuse of bogus software patents in bargaining (in effect excluding those who have not amassed tens of thousands of patents)

THE Bill Gates deposition reveals how Netscape was excluded or pushed out, elbowed from the market in spite of technical advantages, including its cross-platform nature. As it turns out, patents too were leveraged to achieve this monopolisation. But patents are “innovation” (they keep insisting), right?

“As it turns out, patents too were leveraged to achieve this monopolisation.”We’ve isolated (below) the part about Apple and patents (we’ve also highlighted “patent” aspects for hurried readers; note that Mr. Maritz went on to lead a company which blatantly violated the GPL):



4 Q. My question to you now, sir, is whether
5 you believed that cancelling Mac Office 97 would do a
6 great deal of harm to Apple?
7 A. Well, I know that Apple would prefer
8 that we have a more updated version of Mac Office,
9 that that would be a positive thing for them, and so
10 that's why it was part of the negotiation relative to
11 the patent cross license.
12 Q. And did you believe that cancelling Mac
13 Office 97 would do a great deal of harm to Apple?
14 A. I told you I think it would be better
15 for Apple to have everybody doing major upgrades like
16 this. I doubt -- I can't characterize the level of
17 benefit of the upgrade to Apple, but certainly it's
18 something they wanted us to complete.
19 Q. The next sentence in Mr. Waldman's
20 June 27, 1997 e-mail to you begins, "I also believe
21 that Apple is taking this threat pretty seriously."
22 Did someone tell you in or about June
23 of 1997 that Apple was taking Microsoft's threat to
24 cancel Mac Office 97 seriously or pretty seriously?
25 A. Well, Maritz had taken the position
322





1 that it didn't make business sense to finish this
2 upgrade. And it's very possible Apple might have
3 heard about Maritz's opinion there and therefore been
4 worried that we, businesswise, didn't see a reason to
5 complete the upgrade and that they would have the
6 older Mac Office as opposed to this new work that we
7 were part way along on.
8 Q. Mr. Gates, my question is not what
9 position Mr. Maritz did or did not take. My question
10 is whether anyone told you in or about June of 1997
11 that Apple was taking pretty seriously Microsoft's
12 threat to cancel Mac Office 97?
13 A. Apple may have known that senior
14 executives at Microsoft, Maritz in particular,
15 thought that it didn't make business sense to
16 complete that upgrade.
17 Q. Mr. Gates, I'm not asking you what
18 Apple may have known or may not have known. What I'm
19 asking you is whether anybody told you in or about
20 June of 1997 that Apple was taking pretty seriously
21 Microsoft's threat to cancel Mac Office 97?
22 A. Those particular words?
23 Q. Told you that in words or in substance.
24 A. I think I remember hearing that Apple
25 had heard about Maritz's view that it didn't make
323





1 sense to continue the upgrade, but -- and that, you
2 know, they wanted us to continue the upgrade. But
3 I -- I don't remember any of the -- it being phrased
4 at all the way you're phrasing it.
5 Q. Well, the way I'm phrasing it is the
6 way that Mr. Waldman phrased it to you in his e-mail
7 of June 27, 1997; correct, sir?
8 A. Well, in reading it, I see those words,
9 yes.
10 Q. And you don't have any doubt that you
11 received this e-mail, do you, sir?
12 A. I have no reason to doubt it. I don't
13 remember receiving it. I do remember in general
14 sending an e-mail like the one that's at the top
15 there.
16 Q. Do you recall anyone telling you in
17 words or in substance in or about June of 1997 what
18 Mr. Waldman is writing here in this e-mail?
19 MR. HEINER: Objection.
20 THE WITNESS: This is a very long piece
21 of e-mail. Have you read the whole e-mail yourself?
22 MR. BOIES: I think my question was
23 imprecise. I was trying to avoid quoting something
24 for yet another time, but I accept your counsel's
25 view that the question was probably defective. I
324





1 thought it was clear what portion of the e-mail we
2 were talking about, but I will make it clear.
3 Q. Mr. Gates, Mr. Waldman on June 27,
4 1997, sends you an e-mail that says, "The threat to
5 cancel Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest
6 bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great
7 deal of harm to Apple immediately. I also believe
8 that Apple is taking this threat pretty seriously."
9 Do you recall anyone --
10 A. Do you want to finish the sentence or
11 not?
12 Q. You can if you think it is necessary to
13 answer the question.
14 Do you recall anyone telling you what I
15 have just quoted in words or in substance in or about
16 June, 1997?
17 A. No.
18 MR. HEINER: It's just about 10:00 now.
19 Can we take a break?
20 MR. BOIES: If you wish.
21 MR. HEINER: Yes, thanks.
22 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: The time is 9:57.
23 We're going off the record.
24 (Recess.)
25 VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: The time is 10:21.
325





1 We are going back on the record.
2 Q. BY MR. BOIES: What were the primary
3 goals that you personally had, Mr. Gates, in terms of
4 getting Apple to agree to things?
5 MR. HEINER: Objection. Can you be
6 just a bit more specific on that?
7 MR. BOIES: Sure.
8 Q. In the period of 1996 forward, after
9 you concluded that Java, or as you put it, Java
10 runtime threat and Netscape were competitive threats
11 to Microsoft, what were your goals in terms of
12 dealing with Apple? What were you trying to get
13 Apple to agree to do for Microsoft?
14 A. Well, the main reasons we were having
15 discussions with Apple in this '97 period was that
16 they had asserted that various patents that they had
17 applied to various Microsoft products, and so our
18 primary focus in discussing an agreement with them
19 was to conclude a patent cross license of some kind.
20 Q. I want to be sure that the question and
21 answer are meeting. I asked for a period of 1996 to
22 the present and you answered about 1997. Were your
23 goals in 1996 or after 1997 any different than the
24 goals that you've just described in dealing with
25 Apple?
326





1 A. There's only one agreement with Apple,
2 so I don't know what you're talking about.
3 Q. Okay. Do you understand the word goals
4 or objectives?
5 A. You talked about agreeing with Apple --
6 there's only one agreement with Apple that I know
7 about that we're discussing and that was one that was
8 concluded in I think late July or early August, 1997
9 and there's no other agreement that I know was even
10 discussed or considered.
11 Q. Okay. Let me ask you to look at a
12 document previously marked as Government Exhibit 369.
13 The second item on the first page of this exhibit
14 purports to be an e-mail from you dated June 23, 1996
15 to Paul Maritz and Brad Silverberg with copies to
16 Messrs. Higgins, Bradford, Waldman and Ludwig on the
17 subject of "Apple meeting."
18 (The document referred to was marked by
19 the court reporter as Government Exhibit 369 for
20 identification and is attached hereto.)
21 Q. BY MR. BOIES: Did you send this
22 e-mail, Mr. Gates, on or about June 23, 1996?
23 A. I don't remember it specifically, but I
24 don't have any reason to doubt that I did.
25 Q. In the second paragraph you say, "I
327





1 have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple
2 relationship - 1) Maintain our applications share on
3 the platform and 2) See if we can get them to embrace
4 Internet Explorer in some way."
5 Do you see that?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. Does that refresh your recollection as
8 to what your two key goals were in connection with
9 Apple in June of 1996?
10 A. First of all, June of 1996 is not in
11 the time frame that your previous question related
12 to. And certainly in the e-mail to this group I'm
13 not talking about the patent thing, but believe me,
14 it was our top goal in thinking about Apple for many,
15 many years because of their assertions.
16 Q. My time frame in my question, sir, was
17 a time frame beginning in 1996 when you began to view
18 Netscape or the Java runtime threat as a competitive
19 threat to Microsoft.
20 A. And that was after June of 1996.
21 Q. Is it your testimony that in June of
22 1996 you did not consider Netscape to be a
23 competitive threat to Microsoft?
24 A. Netscape was a competitor, but in terms
25 of Java and all the runtime related issues, we didn't
328





1 have a clear view of that at all.
2 Q. So that -- I want to be sure I've got
3 your testimony accurately. It is your testimony that
4 in June of 1996 you considered Netscape to be a
5 competitive threat but you did not consider Java or
6 Java runtime to be a competitive threat; is that your
7 testimony?
8 A. We considered Netscape to be a
9 competitor and I told you earlier that until late '96
10 we were unclear about our position on various Java
11 runtime things and what other companies were doing
12 and what that meant for us competitively.
13 Q. Do you agree that in June of 1996 the
14 two key goals that you had in terms of the Apple
15 relationship were, one, maintain your applications
16 share on the platform, and two, see if you could get
17 Apple to embrace Internet Explorer in some way?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Do you have any explanation for why you
20 would have written to Mr. Maritz and Mr. Silverberg
21 on June 23, 1996 that those were your two key goals
22 in the Apple relationship?
23 A. They weren't involved in the patent
24 issue at all. So when I write to them, I'm focused
25 on the issues that relate to them. I do mention
329





1 patents in here, but that certainly was the primary
2 goal at this time and in subsequent times.
3 Q. Let me be clear. When you write to
4 Mr. Maritz and Mr. Silverberg, you talk about
5 patents, do you not, sir?
6 A. Where do you see that?
7 Q. Well, did you talk about patents?
8 A. Do you want me to read the entire mail?
9 Q. Have you read it enough to know whether
10 you talk about patents?
11 A. I saw the word "patent" in one place.
12 If I read the whole thing, I can find out if it's in
13 other places as well.
14 Q. You do talk about patent cross license,
15 do you not, in this memo? And if you want to look at
16 the last page, five lines from the bottom.
17 A. Yeah. They weren't involved in the
18 patent issues at all, so it looks like in this mail I
19 just mention that in a summary part, but it was our
20 top goal in our discussions with Apple.
21 Q. When you write to Mr. Maritz and
22 Mr. Silverberg, you don't describe that as your top
23 goal, in fact, you don't even describe it as one of
24 your two or three key goals; correct, sir?
25 A. This piece of e-mail doesn't talk about
330





1 the patent goal as the top goal. It's most likely
2 that's because the people copied on the mail don't
3 have a thing to do with it and I wouldn't distract
4 them with it.
5 Q. I want to be sure I have your testimony
6 correct. In June of 1996, what was Paul Maritz's
7 title?
8 A. He was involved in product development
9 activities.
10 Q. He was involved in product development
11 activities. What was his title?
12 A. I don't know. Systems.
13 Q. Systems?
14 A. Uh-huh.
15 Q. Did he have a title that went with
16 that?
17 A. Senior vice-president systems. I don't
18 know.
19 Q. Senior vice-president systems, I see.
20 Did Mr. Silverberg have a position in
21 June of 1996?
22 A. He worked for Mr. Maritz.
23 Q. Did he have a title?
24 A. I don't know what his title was at the
25 time. He would have been an officer of some kind.
331





1 Q. An officer of some kind.
2 So you're writing a memo to Paul
3 Maritz, a senior vice-president, and Brad Silverberg,
4 an officer of some kind, and you're sending copies to
5 four other people on the subject of the Apple
6 meeting, and you say, "I have 2 key goals in
7 investing in the Apple relationship."
8 A. That's quite distinct than any goals I
9 might have for a deal with Apple. It says, "I have 2
10 key goals in investing in the Apple relationship,"
11 not "I have 2 key goals for a deal with Apple."
12 Q. Well, sir, at the bottom you say what
13 you propose in terms of a deal and you talk about
14 what Apple will get out of the deal and what
15 Microsoft will get out of the deal; correct, sir?
16 A. Do you want me to read you the e-mail?
17 I mean I don't know anything more than just what it
18 says in the e-mail. I'm glad to read it to you.
19 Q. Well, sir, does it say at the bottom of
20 the e-mail that you are proposing something with
21 Apple and you are identifying what Apple would get
22 under your proposed deal and what Microsoft would get
23 under your proposed deal?
24 A. Yeah, that's at the bottom of the
25 e-mail.
332





1 Q. In fact, the bottom of the e-mail
2 talking about a proposed Apple-Microsoft deal, you
3 say, "The deal would look like this," and then you've
4 got a column "Apple gets" and a column "Microsoft
5 gets" and a column "Both get"; right, sir?
6 A. I'm reading that.
7 Q. Now, in this e-mail of a page or a page
8 and a half in which you are proposing this deal, you
9 describe your two key goals as maintaining
10 Microsoft's applications share on the platform and
11 getting Apple to embrace Internet Explorer.
12 A. No, that's wrong.
13 Q. That's wrong, okay.
14 A. The word "deal" and the word
15 "relationship" are not the same word. This says, "I
16 have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple
17 relationship." This down here is an agreement which
18 I thought we could reach with Apple.
19 Q. Is it your testimony here today under
20 oath that your two key goals in investing in the
21 Apple relationship, which you mention in the second
22 paragraph of this e-mail, is different than your two
23 key goals in the proposed deal that you describe five
24 paragraphs later?
25 A. I don't see anything in here about the
333





1 key goals -- two key goals in the deal. I've told
2 you that I'm certain that my primary goal in any deal
3 was the patent cross license.
4 Q. Mr. Gates, my question is whether it is
5 your testimony today here under oath that when you
6 talk about your two key goals in investing in the
7 Apple relationship in the second paragraph of this
8 e-mail, that that is different than what your key
9 goals were in the deal that you proposed five
10 paragraphs later?
11 A. That's right. Investing in a
12 relationship is different than the deal.
13 Q. Now, you don't tell Mr. Maritz or
14 Mr. Silverberg that your goals for investing in the
15 Apple relationship are different than your goals in
16 the proposed deal, do you, sir?
17 A. But the goals and the deal are quite
18 different, so obviously they would have known they
19 were quite different.
20 Q. Well, sir, you say the goals and the
21 deal are quite different. One of your two key goals
22 that you talk about in your second paragraph is to
23 get Apple to embrace Internet Explorer in some way.
24 And the very first thing under what Microsoft gets in
25 your proposed deal is, "Apple endorses Microsoft
334





1 Internet Explorer technology." Do you see that, sir?
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. Now, does that refresh your
4 recollection that the deal that you were proposing
5 had some relationship to the two key goals that you
6 were identifying?
7 A. Some relationship, yes, but they aren't
8 the same thing at all.
9 Q. All right, sir.
10 Did you ever prepare any e-mail to
11 anyone, Mr. Maritz or Mr. Silverberg or anyone, in
12 which you said that your primary goal in an Apple
13 deal was obtaining a cross license?
14 A. I don't remember a specific piece of
15 e-mail, but I'm sure I did with at least Mr. Maffei
16 and Mr. Maritz.
17 Q. You're sure you sent them e-mail saying
18 that?
19 A. I'm sure I communicated it to them in
20 some way.
21 Q. Do you believe you sent them anything
22 in writing or an e-mail?
23 A. I think it's likely, but I don't
24 remember a specific document.
25 Q. You certainly haven't seen any such
335





1 document in being prepared for your deposition; is
2 that fair?
3 MR. HEINER: Objection. You're not
4 seeking to intrude on the attorney-client privilege?
5 MR. BOIES: No. I want to know if he
6 has seen any such document, this document he says he
7 thinks exists that wasn't produced in document
8 production. I want to see if he has ever seen it, if
9 he recalls ever seeing it now or any other time.
10 THE WITNESS: I didn't say anything
11 about what may or may not exist at this point. I
12 said I'm sure I communicated to Mr. Maritz and
13 Mr. Maffei that our primary goal in doing the deal
14 with Apple was the patent cross license.
15 Q. BY MR. BOIES: And I had thought, and
16 perhaps I misunderstood, I thought that you had said
17 that you believed that you actually communicated that
18 not merely orally but by e-mail or in writing.
19 A. I think it's likely that I communicated
20 it in e-mail.
21 Q. And if you had communicated it in
22 e-mail, would that e-mail have been preserved?
23 A. Not necessarily.
24 Q. A lot of these e-mails were preserved
25 because we now have copies of them; right?
336





1 A. That's right.
2 Q. How did Microsoft decide what e-mails
3 would be preserved and what e-mails would not be
4 preserved?
5 A. Individuals get e-mail into their
6 mailbox and they decide.
7 Q. Do you have any explanation as to why
8 people would have decided to keep the e-mail that
9 described your two key goals in the Apple
10 relationship as being what they are stated to be here
11 and not have preserved your e-mail that you say you
12 sent saying you had a primary goal of a cross
13 license?
14 MR. HEINER: Objection. Lack of
15 foundation.
16 THE WITNESS: You're missing --
17 MR. HEINER: Hold it. Objection.
18 Those facts are not established. There could be 100
19 e-mails that talk about a patent cross license and
20 you may have them or you may not have them or they
21 may not have been called for. There is a range of
22 possibilities. That question is unfair and I object.
23 MR. BOIES: Okay, you've made your
24 objection. The witness will now answer the question.
25 MR. HEINER: Let's have it read back.
337





1 MR. BOIES: And if you come up with
2 those hundred e-mails, we will read them with
3 interest. I don't think you're going to and you
4 don't think you're going to either.
5 MR. HEINER: I disagree with that.
6 MR. BOIES: Okay.
7 Q. I'll restate the question to just be
8 absolutely certain that it's a fair question,
9 Mr. Gates.
10 If it were the case that neither your
11 counsel nor myself, after diligent search, can find
12 an e-mail that says your primary goal in dealing with
13 Apple was a patent cross license, do you have any
14 explanation as to why that e-mail that you say you
15 think exists would not have been saved, whereas the
16 e-mail that describes one of your two key goals as
17 getting Apple to embrace Internet Explorer was
18 preserved?
19 MR. HEINER: Objection. It's not a
20 sensible question. You asked a hypothetical. How
21 can the witness explain what the facts might be in
22 your hypothetical?
23 MR. BOIES: He is not being asked to
24 explain what the facts are in a hypothetical, I think
25 that's clear. If the witness tells me he cannot
338





1 answer the question, he can do so and we will go on
2 and take that up with everything else we'll take up
3 at a subsequent time.
4 THE WITNESS: When you say "dealing
5 with Apple," there were a lot of things we were
6 dealing with Apple on. I've told you in terms of the
7 deal, the deal I was involved in discussing in '96
8 and under another management at Apple in '97, there's
9 no doubt the primary goal was the patent cross
10 license.
11 Q. BY MR. BOIES: And by "the primary
12 goal," what you mean is the primary goal that you,
13 Mr. Gates, had; is that correct?
14 A. I don't think I'm the only one who had
15 it, but certainly yes, that was the primary goal of
16 myself and for the company.
17 Q. And when you said in your June 23, 1996
18 e-mail, "I have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple
19 relationship," you were talking about yourself
20 personally; is that correct?
21 A. Yeah. When I say "investing in the
22 Apple relationship," that means spending time with
23 Apple and growing the relationship.
24 Q. And when in describing the deal five
25 paragraphs later the very first thing that Microsoft
339





1 gets is, "Apple endorses Microsoft Internet Explorer
2 technology," did that indicate to you that that was
3 an important part of what you were getting in terms
4 of the deal?
5 A. No such deal was ever struck, so I'm
6 not sure what you're saying.
7 Q. Was that an important part of the deal
8 that you were trying to get, sir?
9 A. We never got as far as trying to get
10 that deal, unfortunately.
11 Q. You never got as far as trying to get
12 that deal; is that what you're saying?
13 A. No. Well, in this time frame Gil
14 Amelio's total focus was on his new OS strategy, so
15 what I outlined here we never got them to consider.
16 Q. Well, sir, your e-mail begins, "Last
17 Tuesday night I went down to address the top Apple
18 executives;" correct, sir?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. And down at the bottom when you're
21 introducing the deal, you say, "I proposed." Now,
22 you're referring to what you proposed to the Apple
23 top executives, are you not, sir?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And what you proposed was
340





1 "the deal" that you then describe at the bottom of
2 the first page and the top of the second page;
3 correct, sir?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. And that was a deal that you proposed
6 the Tuesday night before June 23, 1996 to what you
7 describe as the top Apple executives; correct, sir?
8 A. I put forward some of those points.
9 Q. Well, you put them forward and you
10 describe them as proposing a deal, correct, sir?
11 A. That's how I describe it here, yes.
12 Q. All right, sir. Now, you'd said that
13 the deal that you were talking about never got done.
14 Did you ever get Apple to endorse Microsoft Internet
15 Explorer technology?
16 A. You're trying to just read part of
17 that?
18 Q. I'm actually -- what I'm doing is
19 asking a question right now, sir. I'm asking whether
20 in 1996 or otherwise, at any time did you get Apple
21 to endorse Microsoft Internet Explorer technology?
22 A. Well, you can get a copy of the
23 agreement we reached with Apple and decide if in
24 reading that you think it meets that criteria or not.
25 Q. Sir, I'm asking you, as the chief
341





1 executive officer of Microsoft, I'm asking you
2 whether you believe that you achieved that objective?
3 A. We did not get some exclusive
4 endorsement. We did get some -- there's some part of
5 the deal that has to do with Internet Explorer
6 technology.
7 Q. Do you know what that part of the deal
8 is?
9 A. Not really. It has something to do
10 with they will at least ship it along with other
11 browsers.
12 Q. Does the deal prohibit them from
13 shipping Netscape's browser without also shipping
14 Internet Explorer?
15 A. I'd have to look at the deal to
16 understand.
17 Q. It is your testimony sitting here today
18 under oath that you simply don't know one way or the
19 other whether Apple is today free to ship Netscape's
20 browser without also shipping Internet Explorer?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. When you identify things as key goals,
23 do you typically tend to follow up and see to what
24 extent those goals have been achieved?
25 A. In a very general sense, yes.
342





1 Q. Did you ever follow up to see whether
2 one of the two key goals that you identify in your
3 1996 e-mail to Mr. Maritz and Mr. Silverberg and
4 others of getting Apple to embrace Internet Explorer
5 technology in some way had been achieved?
6 A. Well, certainly what I said here,
7 "I have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple
8 relationship," that -- those weren't achieved because
9 the investments I made were with Gil Amelio, who was
10 fired from Apple very soon thereafter.
11 Q. Was there something about Mr. Amelio
12 getting fired that changed what your goals were for
13 the Apple relationship?
14 A. I said, "I have 2 key goals in
15 investing in the Apple relationship." The form that
16 investment took was spending time with Gil Amelio.
17 That turned out to be wasted time because he was
18 fired from Apple rather abruptly within about, oh,
19 eight months of this.
20 Q. When he was fired, did that change what
21 goals you had for the Apple relationship, Mr. Gates?
22 A. It was basically a complete restart
23 because we had to understand what the new management,
24 what they were going to do with Apple and where they
25 were going.
343





1 Q. Did your goals change?
2 A. Goals for what? For investing in the
3 relationship?
4 Q. You say in this e-mail you have two key
5 goals for investing in the Apple relationship. One
6 of --
7 A. In investing in the Apple relationship.
8 Q. One of them is to get Apple to embrace
9 Internet Explorer technology in some way. What I'm
10 asking you is whether that changed after this person
11 got fired?
12 A. We re-evaluated all of our thoughts
13 about working with Apple based on what the new
14 management was going to do, whether they were going
15 to target the machines, what they were going to do
16 with their machines. Since they continued to say we
17 were in violation of their patents, it continued to
18 be our top goal to get some type of patent cross
19 license.

They used this sort of patent collusion also with IBM, not just with Apple, to reinforce control over fonts, codecs and GUIs, among other things, as we noted in past years. If this is the net effect of patents, what good are they to the rest of us?

Billionaires don’t even have to compete when they call their rivals “pirates” (Gates uses this word a lot), then blackmail them in courtrooms, or just threaten them out of the market with threats (‘legalised’ extortion) alone, as we noted earlier today. No wonder the rich keep getting so much richer. They make up rules that perpetuate and accentuate this gross injustice/inequality.

« 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