10.06.20

Gemini version available ♊︎

Translation of Bill Gates Deposition With Reference to Today’s Strategy, or Microsoft’s Abusive Tactics Against the Competition (Including Linux)

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, GNU/Linux, Hardware, Microsoft at 11:19 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Previously in this series:

Start me up
Crimes from the “start me up” Microsoft era (imposing inferior computer software on people)

Summary: We examine some transcript of the Bill Gates testimony, which was taped and served to reveal a nervous Gates telling a lot of lies

THE FOLLOWING testimony is two decades old. But a lot of the said tactics (which Gates is being grilled for) are still applicable and are often leveraged against GNU/Linux companies (like Canonical) and against hardware companies that generally support GNU and Linux. Here we go:

Question by Justice Department attorney David Boies: Did Microsoft make any effort to convince Intel not to help Sun and Java?

Or Linux?

Answer by Bill Gates: Not that I know of.

Not answering the question directly, instead changing it.

Q: Did you or anyone at Microsoft attempt to convince Intel not to engage in any software activity?

They did it to Linux at Intel. See reference above. Gates himself asked: “Where are we on this Jihad?” (Referring to discouraging Linux support at Intel)

We last mentioned it a year ago.

A: No.

Wrong answer. A lie.

Q: Did you or, to your knowledge, anyone at Microsoft try to convince Intel that it should not engage in any software activity unless Microsoft was involved in that activity?

A: I’m sure we pointed out sometimes how sometimes a lack of communications between the two companies on various subjects including software development led to unfortunate unreliability and mismatch, which led to bad customer experiences.

This is untrue. It’s all about control. If Microsoft controls it, good. Otherwise, bad. Microsoft never cared about customers, who are — or were — OEMs anyway (users are/were forced to get Windows with a new PC).

Q: And what did that lead you to ask Intel to do?

A: Oh, in general, to see if we couldn’t do a better job communicating with each other so that people would have better experiences using the PC.

Notice the still-ongoing lie that it’s about “people” rather than Microsoft (or Gates).


Q: Did you or, insofar as you’re aware, anyone else at Microsoft tell people at Intel that they should leave the software side of the PC business entirely to Microsoft?

The interrogator knows this to be true and has evidence at hand.

A: We were having a hard time coordinating our work with Intel, and we thought the quality of some of their work was very low as well as not working with any of our new Windows work. We may have suggested at some point that the net contribution of their software activities could even be viewed to be negative.

As The Register recalls it: “Presumably. Gates shows little sign of having been well-briefed for the deposition by Microsoft lawyers. It is quite likely that Gates refused advice – this is of constant concern to his PR handlers. It may well turn out, if the performance he produced on Monday is typical, that the greatest single factor causing Microsoft to lose the case will be Gates’ performance. Gates’ had a mantra for the part of the deposition about Intel: the words were “low quality” and “incompatible” for Intel software. His vehemence, and other evidence, suggests that the opposite may be true: Intel’s software was a considerable threat to Microsoft, as we shall detail in due course.
Outside the courtroom, Boies said that Microsoft deliberately tried to stop Intel from competing because its software quality was good, not poor. In many of the exchanges which follow, Gates paused for up to 25 seconds, staring down at the table…”

Q: Did you, or insofar as you are aware, anyone else at Microsoft tell representatives of Intel that their software activities were inconsistent with cooperation between Intel and Microsoft?

A: The specific work they did that completely broke our work I’m sure I indicated I didn’t think that was a good idea for either company.

Another falsehood. He is also contradicting what he said earlier. When asked “Did you or anyone at Microsoft attempt to convince Intel not to engage in any software activity?” he said “No.”

Q: Other than the specific software that would not work on Windows 95 that Intel was working on, did you or, insofar as you are aware, anyone else at Microsoft tell Intel representatives that the software work that Intel was doing was inconsistent with cooperation between Intel and Microsoft?

A: Well, there’s some other things that they did that created incompatibilities.

The answer “no” suddenly revealed to be a lie. Again.

Q: Incompatibilities between what and what?

A: Between their software and Windows, that was intended to run on Windows, that created incompatibilities.

Q: And did you tell them that that software also was not consistent with cooperation between Microsoft and Intel?

A: I doubt I used those words. I suggested that it wasn’t helpful to any of their goals or our goals to have software that had incompatibilities and was low quality and broke.

Gates comes from a lawyer family. The only “incompatibility” was… with some dodgy contract that is likely illegitimate anyway.


Q: Did you, Mr. Gates, personally ever express concern to (Intel Chairman Andy) Mr. Grove that Intel’s software work was beginning to overlap with Microsoft’s software work?

A: Only in the sense that the low quality and incompatibilities were inconsistent with any goals that Intel might have had in doing that work.

He keeps mentioning that word, “incompatibilities,” without giving any concrete example.

Q: Why was that a concern?

A: Because Intel was wasting its money by writing low quality software that created incompatibilities for users, and those negative experiences weren’t helpful for any goal that Intel had.

Q: Were they harmful to any goal that Microsoft had?

A: Only in the sense of hurting PC popularity by creating negative user experiences.

Q: Is it your testimony that your only concern with what Intel was doing in the software area was a concern to avoid negative user experiences?

A: That’s right. Low quality and incompatibilities.

Again, no examples given.

Q: Which, according to you, would lead to negative user experiences, correct?

A: That’s right.

Q: Did you or, insofar as you are aware, anybody at Microsoft ever tell Intel representatives in words or in substance that they should stick to hardware and leave the software to Microsoft?

Market sharing is illegal.

Gates: I’m sure there were times when we were frustrated about the quality and incompatibility problems created about their software where someone might have expressed that sentiment in an extreme feeling about how tough it had been for Intel to do quality work that would have advanced any Intel goal.

Q: Were you aware of any work that Intel was doing relating to Internet software development?

A: I can’t think of any.

Q: Did you ever express any concern to anyone at Intel, or to your knowledge, did anyone at Microsoft ever express any concern to anyone at Intel concerning Intel’s Internet software work, if any?

A: I don’t think Intel ever did any Internet software work.

Q: And if they did, I take it it’s your testimony no one ever told you about it?

A: That’s right.

The interrogator knows he has evidence to the contrary. He lets Gates lie on the record in this testimony… and gives him ample opportunity to correct himself.


Q: Did you ask Intel to keep you apprised of what software work Intel was doing?

A: I think I made that request in vain on several occasions, nothing ever came of it.

Not answering the actual question, though it seems like “yes” is the reply. Plus some excuses. Answering questions that were never even asked.

Q: Is it your testimony that they refused to keep you apprised of the software work they were doing?

A: No. I just said to them that if they would — whatever software work they were doing that was intended to help Windows, they should talk to us about it early on if they wanted to have the highest probability that it would, in fact, achieve that goal. And unfortunately, we never achieved that result; that is, they would do things related to Windows without talking to us in advance, and then once they had done the work, there would be some incompatibilities between what they had done and Windows itself.

Gates contradicts himself again. Because he acknowledged a harmful allegation that Microsoft has been trying to control Intel and its work (akin to hardware-software collusion and market sharing).

Q: Did you or, to your knowledge, anyone from Microsoft ever tell people at Intel that Microsoft would hold up support for Intel’s microprocessors if Intel didn’t cooperate with Microsoft in areas that Microsoft wanted Intel’s cooperation in?

A form of blackmail.

A: When we saw Intel doing the low quality work that was creating incompatibilities in Windows that served absolutely no Intel goal, we suggested to Intel that that should change. And it became frustrating to us because it was a long period of time where they kept doing work that we thought, although it was intended to be positive in the Windows environment, it was actually negative. And we did point out the irony of how while we seemed to communicate with them on microprocessor issues and yet they seemed on the areas where they were trying to enhance Windows that the communication worked very poorly.

Intel didn’t play ball with Bill’s “Jihad” (his word). But Microsoft had threatened Intel.


Q: Did you or others on behalf of Microsoft tell Intel that Microsoft would hold up support for Intel’s microprocessors if Intel did not cooperate with Microsoft?

Asking again to overcome the evasion (evasive long answer and subject change).

A: No.

Q: No one ever told Intel that, to your knowledge?

A: That’s right.

Another lie on the record.


Q: Did you, Mr. Gates, ever yourself try to get Intel to reduce its support of Netscape?

A: I’m not aware of any work that Intel did in supporting Netscape. They may have used their browser internally or one of their server things, but that’s — that’s not really support. So I’m not sure of any support they were giving to Netscape.

Not answering the actual question. And also lying.

Q: You may mean that to answer my question, but I want to be clear. It is your testimony that you’re not aware of any instance where you asked anybody at Intel to reduce the support that Intel was providing to Netscape; is that your testimony?

A: No. I may have asked I may — and I don’t remember it — but I may have talked to them about their internal browser use. I don’t think so, but I may have. And I may have talked to them about their web servers and what they were using, but I don’t think so.

Gates admits lying. So he now resorts to some more face-saving waffle.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. Dotcom Boom and Bust, Round 2

    The age of technology giants/monopolies devouring everything or military-funded (i.e. taxpayers-subsidised) surveillance/censorship tentacles, in effect privatised eyes of the state, may be ending; the United States can barely sustain that anymore and raising the debt ceiling won't solve that (buying time isn't the solution)



  2. Society Would Benefit From a Smartphoneshame Movement

    In a society plagued by blackmail, surveillance and frivolous lawsuits it is important to reconsider the notion of “smart” phone ownership; these devices give potentially authoritarian companies and governments far too much power over people (in the EU they want to introduce new legislation that would, in effect, ban Free software if it enables true privacy)



  3. IRC Proceedings: Friday, February 03, 2023

    IRC logs for Friday, February 03, 2023



  4. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, February 02, 2023

    IRC logs for Thursday, February 02, 2023



  5. Links 03/02/2023: Proton 7.0-6 Released, ScummVM 2.7 Testing

    Links for the day



  6. Links 03/02/2023: OpenSSH 9.2 and OBS Studio 29.0.1

    Links for the day



  7. Links 03/02/2023: GNU C Library 2.37

    Links for the day



  8. Sirius Finished

    Yesterday I was sent a letter approving my resignation from Sirius ‘Open Source’, two months after I had already announced that I was resigning with immediate effect; they sent an identical letter to my wife (this time, unlike before, they remembered to also change the names!!)



  9. The Collapse of Sirius in a Nutshell: How to Identify the Symptoms and Decide When to Leave

    Sirius is finished, but it's important to share the lessons learned with other people; there might be other "pretenders" out there and they need to be abandoned



  10. Links 03/02/2023: WINE 8.1 and RapidDisk 9.0.0

    Links for the day



  11. Links 02/02/2023: KDE Gear 22.12.2 and LibreOffice 7.5

    Links for the day



  12. Linux News or Marketing Platform?

    Ads everywhere: Phoronix puts them at the top, bottom, navigation bar, left, and right just to read some Microsoft junk (puff pieces about something that nobody other than Microsoft even uses); in addition there are pop-ups asking for consent to send visitors’ data to hundreds of data brokers



  13. Daily Links at Techrights Turn 15, Time to Give Them an Upgrade

    This year we have several 15-year anniversaries; one of them is Daily Links (it turned 15 earlier this week) and we've been working to improve these batches of links, making them a lot more extensive and somewhat better structured/clustered



  14. Back to Focusing on Unified Patent Court (UPC) Crimes and Illegal Patent Agenda, Including the EPO's

    The EPO's (European Patent Office, Europe's second-largest institution) violations of constitutions, laws and so on merit more coverage, seeing that what's left of the "media" not only fails to cover scandalous things but is actively cheering for criminals (in exchange for money)



  15. European Patent Office Staff Votes in Favour of Freedom of Association (97% of Voters in Support)

    The Central Staff Committee (CSC) at the EPO makes a strong case for António Campinos to stop breaking and law and actually start obeying court orders (he’s no better than Benoît Battistelli and he uses worse language already)



  16. Links 02/02/2023: Glibc 2.37 and Go 1.20

    Links for the day



  17. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, February 01, 2023

    IRC logs for Wednesday, February 01, 2023



  18. Links 01/02/2023: Security Problems, Unrest, and More

    Links for the day



  19. Links 01/02/2023: Stables Kernels and Upcoming COSMIC From System76

    Links for the day



  20. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, January 31, 2023

    IRC logs for Tuesday, January 31, 2023



  21. Links 31/01/2023: Catchup Again, Wayland in Xfce 4.20

    Links for the day



  22. Links 31/01/2023: elementary OS 7

    Links for the day



  23. Intimidation Against Nitrux Development Team Upsets the Community and Makes the Media Less Trustworthy

    Nitrux is being criticised for being “very unappealing”; but a look behind the scenes reveals an angry reviewer (habitual mouthpiece of the Linux Foundation and Linux foes) trying to intimidate Nitrux developers, who are unpaid volunteers rather than “corporate” developers



  24. Links 31/01/2023: GNOME 44 Wallpapers and Alpha

    Links for the day



  25. Free and Open Source Software Developers' European Meeting (FOSDEM) and KU Leuven Boosting Americans and Cancellers of the Father of Free Software

    The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its founder, Richard M. Stallman (RMS), along with the SFLC one might add, have been under a siege by the trademark-abusing FSFE and SFC; Belgium helps legitimise the ‘fakes’



  26. Techrights in the Next 5 or 10 Years

    Now that I’m free from the shackles of a company (it deteriorated a lot after grabbing Gates Foundation money under an NDA) the site Techrights can flourish and become more active



  27. 60 Days of Articles About Sirius 'Open Source' and the Long Road Ahead

    The Sirius ‘Open Source’ series ended after 60 days (parts published every day except the day my SSD died completely and very suddenly); the video above explains what’s to come and what lessons can be learned from the 21-year collective experience (my wife and I; work periods combined) in a company that still claims, in vain, to be “Open Source”



  28. IRC Proceedings: Monday, January 30, 2023

    IRC logs for Monday, January 30, 2023



  29. Taking Techrights to the Next Level in 2023

    I've reached a state of "closure" when it comes to my employer (almost 12 years for me, 9+ years for my wife); expect Techrights to become more active than ever before and belatedly publish important articles, based on longstanding investigations that take a lot of effort



  30. The ISO Delusion: When the Employer Doesn’t Realise That Outsourcing Clients' Passwords to LassPass After Security Breaches Is a Terrible Idea

    The mentality or the general mindset at Sirius ‘Open Source’ was not compatible with that of security conscientiousness and it seemed abundantly clear that paper mills (e.g. ISO certification) cannot compensate for that


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 Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts