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. [Meme] [Teaser] Miguel de Icaza on CEO of Microsoft GitHub

    Our ongoing series, which is very long, will shed much-needed light on GitHub and its goals (the dark side is a lot darker than people care to realise)



  2. Gemini Protocol and Gemini Space Are Not a Niche; for Techrights, Gemini Means Half a Million Page Requests a Month

    Techrights on gemini:// has become very big and we’ll soon regenerate all the pages (about 37,500 of them) to improve clarity, consistency, and general integrity



  3. 'Satellite States' of EPO Autocrats

    Today we look more closely at how Baltic states were rendered 'voting fodder' by large European states, looking to rubber-stamp new and oppressive measures which disempower the masses



  4. [Meme] Don't Mention 'Brexit' to Team UPC

    It seems perfectly clear that UPC cannot start, contrary to what the EPO‘s António Campinos told the Council last week (lying, as usual) and what the EPO insinuates in Twitter; in fact, a legal challenge to this should be almost trivial



  5. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part IXX: The Baltic States

    How unlawful EPO rules were unsurprisingly supported by Benoît Battistelli‘s friends in Baltic states; António Campinos maintained those same unlawful rules and Baltic connections, in effect liaising with offices known for their corruption (convicted officials, too; they did not have diplomatic immunity, unlike Battistelli and Campinos)



  6. Links 21/10/2021: GIMP 2.99.8 Released, Hardware Shortages, Mozilla Crisis

    Links for the day



  7. How Oppressive Governments and Web Monopolists Might Try to Discourage Adoption of Internet Protocols Like Gemini

    Popular movements and even some courageous publications have long been subverted by demonisation tactics, splits along unrelated grounds (such as controversial politics) and — failing that — technical sabotage and censorship; one must familiarise oneself with commonly-recurring themes of social control by altercation



  8. [Meme] Strike Triangulations, Reception Issues

    Financial strangulations for Benoît Battistelli‘s unlawful “Strike Regulations”? The EPO will come to regret 2013…



  9. [Meme] Is Saying “No!” to Unlawful Proposals Considered “Impolite”?

    A ‘toxic mix’ of enablers and cowards (who won’t vote negatively on EPO proposals which they know to be unlawful) can serve to show that the EPO isn’t a “social democracy” as Benoît Battistelli liked to call it; it’s just a dictatorship, currently run by the son of a person who actually fought dictatorship



  10. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, October 20, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, October 20, 2021



  11. [Meme] EPO Legal Sophistry and Double Dipping

    An imaginary EPO intercept of Administrative Council discussions in June 2013...



  12. Links 21/10/2021: PostgreSQL JDBC 42.3.0 and Maui Report

    Links for the day



  13. [Meme] [Teaser] “Judge a Person Both by His Friends and Enemies”

    Fervent supporters of Team Battistelli or Team Campinos (a dark EPO era) are showing their allegiances; WIPO and EPO have abused staff similarly over the past decade or so



  14. 'Cluster-Voting' in the European Patent Office/Organisation (When a Country With 1.9 Million Citizens Has the Same Voting Power as a Country With 83.1 Million Citizens)

    Today we examine who has been running the Finnish patent office and has moreover voted in the EPO during the ballot on unlawful "Strike Regulations"; they voted in favour of manifestly illegal rules and for 8.5 years after that (including last Wednesday) they continued to back a shady regime which undermines the EPO's mission statement



  15. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVIII: Helsinki's Accord

    The Finnish outpost has long been strategic to the EPO because it can help control the vote of four or more nations; evidence suggests this has not changed



  16. [Meme] Living as a Human Resource, Working for Despots

    The EPO has become a truly awful place/employer to work for; salary is 2,000 euros for some (despite workplace stress, sometimes relocation to a foreign country)



  17. Links 20/10/2021: New Redcore Linux and Hospital Adoption of GNU Health

    Links for the day



  18. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, October 19, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, October 19, 2021



  19. Links 19/10/2021: Karanbir Singh Leaves CentOS Board, GPL Violations at Vizio

    Links for the day



  20. [Meme] Giving the Knee

    The 'knee' champion Kratochvìl and 'kneel' champion Erlingsdóttir are simply crushing the law; they’re ignoring the trouble of EPO staff and abuses of the Office, facilitated by the Council itself (i.e. facilitated by themselves)



  21. Josef Kratochvìl Rewarded Again for Covering Up EPO Corruption and the EPO Bribes the Press for Lies Whilst Also Lying About Its Colossal Privacy Violations

    Corrupt officials and officials who actively enable the crimes still control the Office and also the body which was supposed to oversee it; it's pretty evident and clear judging by this week's press statements at the EPO's official Web site



  22. [Meme] Sorry, Wrong Country (Or: Slovenia isn't Great Britain)

    Team UPC is trying to go ahead with a total hoax which a high-level European court would certainly put an end to (if or when a referral is initiated)



  23. How Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden Voted on Patently Unlawful Regulations at the EPO

    We look back and examine what happened 8 years ago when oppressed staff was subjected to unlawful new “regulations” (long enjoyed by António Campinos, the current EPO autocrat)



  24. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVII: The Non-Monolithic Nordic Bloc

    We start our investigation of how countries in northern Europe ended up voting on the unlawful “Strike Regulations” at the EPO and why



  25. Proof That Windows “11” is a Hoax

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  26. Firefox Becomes as Morally Reprehensible as Apple, Facebook, or Uber

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  27. Links 19/10/2021: GNU dbm 1.22 and Godot 3.4 RC 1

    Links for the day



  28. [Meme] [Teaser] GitHub an Expensive and Dangerous Trap (Also: Misogyny Hub)

    The ongoing Microsoft GitHub exposé will give people compelling reasons to avoid GitHub, which is basically just a subsidised (at a loss) trap



  29. Norway Should Have Voted Against Benoît Battistelli's Illegal (Anti-)'Strike Regulations' at the European Patent Office

    Benoît Battistelli‘s EPO faced no real and potent opposition from Norwegian delegates, who chose to abstain from the vote on the notorious and illegal so-called ‘Strike Regulations’ (they’re just an attack on strikes, an assault on basic rights of labourers)



  30. Links 19/10/2021: Sequoia PGP LGPL 2.0+, Open RAN Adoption

    Links for the day


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