ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

ActiveMac

Articles

Forums

Links

News

News Search

Reviews

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

DVD

ActiveHardware

Xbox

MaINTosh

News Search

ANet Chats

The Lobby

Special Events Room

Developer's Lounge

XBox Chat

FAQ's

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows "Whistler" XP

Windows CE

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

TopTechTips

Registry Tips

Windows 95/98

Windows 2000

Internet Explorer 4

Internet Explorer 5

Windows NT Tips

Program Tips

Easter Eggs

Hardware

DVD

Latest Reviews

Applications

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

Norton SystemWorks 2002

Hardware

Intel Personal Audio Player 3000

Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer

Site News/Info

About This Site

Affiliates

ANet Forums

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

States Ask to Bar New Microsoft Witnesses

Time: 02:56 EST/07:56 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Byron Hinson

The nine state attorneys general still pressing an antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. told a federal judge on Monday she should bar more than a dozen last-minute witnesses Microsoft plans to call to argue against more severe sanctions against the company. Attorneys for California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and six other states told U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that Microsoft had used a "hide-the-ball" tactic by naming 23 new witnesses in the case on Friday, only hours before the deadline.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 155
Last | Next

The time now is 6:50:03 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/12/2002 10:14:19 AM

New title for article: "States trying to obstruct Microsoft witnesses from testifying"

#2 By 2459 (66.25.124.8) at 2/12/2002 10:56:00 AM

It was clear from the start of the case that this wasn't about consumers. First, it was about Netscape, then Sun, Oracle, AOL, Palm and a bunch of other "competitors" jumped on the wagon. Most consumers didn't feel they were harmed. The one's that did can't find good reasons of how they were harmed.

Probably the most vocal "consumers" against MS were the ones arguing MS overcharged for their products, even though it can easily be shown that most of MS's products have either stayed the same price while offering more functionality or that they have come down in price since their introduction.

Others feeling harm are often from the alternative OS groups (You mean there ARE alternatives?). Some people in the *nix groups want the company destroyed and often proclaim to not use anything Microsoft (at least as a goal), yet they continue to cry for MS to open-source their products so they can steal the code, or port their products so they can use them on *nix. They still fail to see that a company is not obligated to either tailor an OS to an individuals standards (it's a package). MS, or any company/individual is not obligated to port to other platforms (more time, money, support staff, little return). And no one is obligated to open their code. They tried the argument that there was no choice of OSes when buying a computer (though they could build their own or use one of the system builders that would preinstall *nix). Dell tried to fill this supposed gap and lost money on the venture.

Then there are some of Apple's Mac fans whose favorite argument is that MS does nothing original and "steals" most stuff from Apple/The Mac. Though they conviently ignore many Windows features that have creeped into MacOS since OS 8, and the fact that the whole platform has essentially become a PC (They still insult PC users with terms such as PeeCee). Some even believe Apple invented USB, AGP, PCI, etc., and often the info they convey to others about Windows and PCs is extremely dated or simply wrong altogether.

Sun is the major cheerleader for the case, yet they never mention consumers. It's always, "We don't think this remedy does enough to help competitors." AOL is probably worse because at the same time they shout unfairness, they issue memos like this one: http://www.betanews.com/aol.html

I could go on about Palm and others, but everyone has probably heard it before and are already tired if they read this far (How many will actually read this far?).

#3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/12/2002 2:40:22 PM

Sure what MS did is legal, but it's also quite legal to try to have these witnesses barred. After all, both parties were supposed to meet and collaborate on how this remedy phase would proceed, and they submitted their recommendations last week. In fact, MS argued that this should be limited to one day of hearings (even though K-K is keeping the schedule open). Now, all of a sudden they are adding 23 witnesses at the last minute when I thought each parties' total potential witness lists were around 20 each. To double the size of your witness list a couple of hours before the deadline is generally poor practice and can and should be opposed.

#4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/12/2002 4:37:16 PM

Actually, #9 you don't see sh1t since I have never been nor continue to be a linux shill. My logic is perfectly clear.

MS wanted a very small and limited one day remedy hearing. Both parties are actually supposed to be discussing and colloborating at this point because they actually get to frame the hearings (with K-K with the final word). Adding 23 extra witness a couple of hours before final submission is baloney. Top that off with the fact that they are trying to say these guys might testify, they might not--it's obvious they are trying to stall and complicate the issue.

If I am wrong that both parties originally had about 20 witness scheduled, then maybe I am wrong.

If it's true that both parties were going to present around 20 witness, I think it should be obvious and clear for even someone like you that adding 23 new witnesses at the last minute is worthy of at least a brief filed by the rebel states.

#5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/12/2002 5:37:16 PM

I'm getting huffy and puffy, eh? You called me a shill, a ms hater, said my logic was clouded, and said jerk was descriptive.

I just tried to restate my logic--I think it's very clear, but apparently I was wrong that you'd get it.

I've been able to confirm that the states have a 16 person witness list; I have been unable to confirm MS's previous list but it was about the same (say 16-20). Now, only two hours before the deadline it has increased by over 100% adding an extra 23 witnesses even though last Friday they were arguing for a shortened, one day remedy phase.

I'm not bothered by this; I just think it's perfectly logical to oppose it. I don't care which way K-K decides but one way or the other, MS is risking what they wanted to avoid--expanding the remedy phase to include new evidence and an expanded trial. Fine by me but stupid, hypocritical, and doesn't serve anyone's interest.

I'm telling the truth, have told the truth, and will continue to do so. If the shills simply looked at the numbers (again, their witness list was 15-20 people; they added 23 in the last hour or two meaning they want to drag 43 people to the bench when the states want to use 16 witnesses) and compare it to what MS has been saying about a speedy, efficacious, and confined remedy, I think they would realize that, yes, it's legal, but that doesn't make it right.

#6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/12/2002 5:48:23 PM

I, by the way, I say what MS is trying is perfectly legal--I mean making the effort.

I would expect that a judge who gives both parties a few weeks to get together, frame the issues, determine a schedule, propose witness lists, state the points of contention, then has MS argue that the states are presenting too many rival witnesses and that the remedy hearings should be limited to one day, but then a week later at the last hour, doubles the size of their witness list... yes, I would expect the Judge to limit most of those witnesses if not on ethical and judicial grounds than on the grounds of expediency and also to control her own courtroom.

But, I said it previously, I don't know or care which way K-K will rule; I just think it's idiotic that you are all mostly blindly defending this.

#7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/12/2002 7:05:15 PM

"My true alliances!" -- are you some sci-fi nerd locked in a closet waiting for episode 2 to come out?; my logic is basic math.

Last Thursday and all the weeks preceding:
---------------
the states witnesses: 16
MS's witnesses: 15-20

MS complained that the states were including too many competitor representatives in their witness list; that the remedy phase should be limited in scope and only last one day

Friday Evening (2-3 hours before the deadline):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the states' witnesses: 16
MS's witnesses: 38-43

What happened in Redmond over Thursday night? They knew what the states are after for weeks.

The states oppose 16 of these NEW witnesses, meaning they are allowing MS to ADD 7 NEW witnesses at the LAST MINUTE...

...final tally if states get what they want...
-----------------------------------------------------
the states witnesses: 16
MS's witnesses: 22-27

Ooooh, those states are really evil and preventing justice! And MS isn't shooting themselves in the foot by adding 5 more economists, 7 more MS execs who were afraid to testify during the trial, and 11 MS stooges to blow Gates' horn! Let's hear some MORE rushing wind! Whatever...

This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 19:30.

#8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/12/2002 8:21:28 PM

Whatever, anon, I'm not aware of any prognostication on my part at all (I said I don't know or care about what K-K may decide; I said it is only reasonable and appropriate that this would be opposed and may happen successfully), and you seem to be quite involved with my alleged trashtalk but have yet to provide a counter argument to what I state plainly--MS doubled their witness list an hour or two before the deadline even though they were complaining that the states were including too many competitor witnesses and that they wanted to expand the remedy phase.

As for being a troll, I've posted over 100 comments with an identity and probably 2-3 hundred as an anon prior to that; I see nothing illogical or predictive about my statements; I do not even see my comments as particularly concerned with MS, just with the trial proceedings... Meanwhile, you hide behind an anonymous id and shout lack of life, troll, trash talk, troll trashcan... whatever. Give me a solid argument why MS who had been arguing for a brief confined remedy should double its witness list in the final couple of hours of proposal submissions. Huh, can you give me an argument?

#9 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 2/12/2002 9:05:08 PM

It seems clear to me that Microsoft saw the list of competitors that the states were calling as witnesses and they decided it would be a good move to include witnesses who were partners in the industry, to demonstrate the support they have for their business.

Sure, Microsoft wanted only one day of hearings... the states did not. They didn't get their one day of hearings, so now they do a different strategy.

I guess I don't understand why you are whining.

#10 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 2/12/2002 10:07:16 PM

Ok, a few things.

1.) Since when was there a rule (or even understanding) that there should be an even number of witnesses for both sides of a case? Each side attempts to get as many good witnesses as possible, since it adds credibility to their case.

2.) It's fairly obvious Microsoft is, in part, using this as a stall tactic. It can take a day+ per witness for approval, depending on how fast or how slow verification goes. Sometimes it takes 10 seconds. Microsoft's betting on the former.

3.) Competitors comprise the vast majority of the State's witness list, which I find very confusing. Anti-Trust is about consumers, so shouldn't consumers be the ones on the witness list?

4.) I'm not entirely sure how delays will help Microsoft anyway. Perhaps they're just clawing for more time to prepare their case, which also means the States have that additional time.

#11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/13/2002 1:02:55 PM

RMD

1) I'm not asserting that they should have the same number of witnesses, just that there is a normal number of witnesses--we are talking about a bench trial, in front of a judge only, where a number of character and expert witnesses is actually restricted, distilled so to speak... the same way they are taking the 40,000 public comments and published the main 45. And there are some rules about balance--if Microsoft gets to have 7 instead of 3 economists, yes, usually, the prosecution gets to rebut these new witnesses with new witnesses of their own, etc... So there is an argument for equality of witnesses is some respects if not purely numerical; what I object to is their doubling the number of witnesses at the last minute.

2) The process probably won't be so individual--it'll probably be more like, "Yes, I'd like to hear from Gates, Ballmer, et al, the extra economists are out, yes, some of your industry representatives will be included to support the argument that it will harm other markets, you can present 3; however, if the prosecution would like to do so, they can include another 3 witnesses to support the argument that it will benefit other arguments." (I'm not a lawyer, but I would say we'll get a brief hearing and single announcement from K-K sometime this week or next.)

3) This is a remedy phase which is about complex technology, its economic repercussions on the monopoly, and the effects on the overall economy. One could question how much the technologists, economists, and lawyers know about this issue; I see no reason for end user desktop consumers to be testifying. I want to hear from the companies that know technology and the markets.

4) Delay won't help anyone... This is a small issue really BUT their witness did double over a day; I'd be pretty annoyed by the tactic if I were a judge--this is like Allchin bringing in a computer that doesn't work because they removed all the html related dlls--simply obnoxious.

#12 By 4240821 (45.149.82.86) at 10/25/2023 7:25:45 PM