
Bill Gates answers questions about Java during a deposition (1998) [video] - BukhariH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhdDZk45HDI&feature=youtu.be&t=1m13s
======
venantius
I'm stealing one of the YouTube comments, because I actually thought it was
pretty interesting. I started watching this thinking the interviewer was an
idiot, but I think the issue is a little more complicated than it seems at
first. Comment from YouTube user "tapo":

So in the 90's Sun Microsystems created Java, which has two components, the
programming language and the runtime. The runtime (the Java you install) lets
you run things written in Java on any device regardless of OS or CPU
architecture. Write once, run anywhere. This was a huge threat to Microsoft.
Why write Windows programs when you could write Java programs and they'd run
on any computer?

So Microsoft wrote their own Java runtime called the MS JVM, and made it part
of Windows, it extended Java to do Windows-only things, meaning there were now
"Java" apps that could only run on Windows, destroying the whole point of
Java.

This became part of the antitrust trial because it ruined Sun's product. In a
separate case, Sun sued Microsoft and won.﻿

~~~
doughj3
> So Microsoft wrote their own Java runtime called the MS JVM, and made it
> part of Windows, it extended Java to do Windows-only things, meaning there
> were now "Java" apps that could only run on Windows, destroying the whole
> point of Java.

How does this differ from what Google did with Android, effectively leading to
"Java apps that can only run on Android"?

~~~
nikcub
It doesn't. Sun, and then Oracle sued Google and lost (on syntax, on API it is
still bouncing around):

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google)

Sun settled with Microsoft before a verdict was reached, so the question of IP
and if alternate implementations of a language syntax is allowed wasn't
answered then.

In the antitrust suit, all that was answered was that Microsoft used its
advantage with its operating system monopoly to push its version of the Java
runtime. The effect was that Microsoft were not allowed to bundle their
runtime, but had to offer users the choice - they were not found to be
violating Sun's IP in implementing a runtime.

Syntax of a programming language not being IP protected is probably a good
thing for developers, regardless of what you think of the Microsoft situation.
The API being protected is a separate issue, as is the trademark on the name
(which applied in the Microsoft case but not in Google's since they didn't use
the trademark term in their implementation)

~~~
V-2
Note that Google considered using C# instead of Java at some point :)

"If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work
and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our
decision, perhaps making enemies along the way"

[http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/judge-orders-overhaul-
of-...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/judge-orders-overhaul-of-
oracles.html)

~~~
MichaelGG
The Mono team ported Android to C#, and got some significant performance wins.
[http://blog.xamarin.com/android-in-c-sharp/](http://blog.xamarin.com/android-
in-c-sharp/)

One wonders how much better the world would be if Google had hired some first
employees that preferred expressive languages.

------
georgemcbay
This is surprisingly interesting to watch.

The way he responds is almost like he is playing a high-level chess match,
which is unfortunately absolutely necessary because the person deposing him is
fishing for a simple "yes" answer to a question without all the context he
already provided (so that this can be introduced in a dramatic way such that
even if those deciding the case get the full context later they will have
already made up their mind that "Java == Competitive Threat" based on the
introduction).

Having been on a 6 week long jury trial that included a lot of these sorts of
deposition "revelations" where people (who you'd think would be smarter,
though it is difficult to adjust for how much stress this sort of questioning
puts them under) said something that sounded terrible in local context (but
innocuous in the wider context that the defense later showed), the local
context that is introduced first is really all that sticks with a lot of
people, if the majority of the people on my jury were any indication.

In this case, all of his answers are smart, which isn't that surprising since
like him or not Bill Gates is clearly a really smart fellow (and one who was
surely coached for this up-front by a crack legal team).

~~~
johnabygone
...apart from jury trials don't have depositions, so you're lying

~~~
georgemcbay
The trial I was on had lots of depositions presented to us.

The case was Fleischmann v. DJO, San Diego County Courthouse, late July to
August 2013, presided over by Judge Joel M Pressman.

The plaintiff lived in Colorado and the case involved a lot of care-givers
from that area as well as "expert" witnesses from as far as Alaska, but the
company he was suing was based in San Diego. Given the high number of
witnesses unable to attend a trial so far from where they are based, we had to
deal with a lot of deposition-based testimony, some of them shown to us in
video form and some read aloud in reenactment by lawyers. And even in cases
where the depositions aren't directly shown to the jurors they are still
highly used by lawyers in an attempt to get present-at-the-trial witnesses to
contradict their deposition statements.

You might want to tone down the accusations of lying when you don't really
know what you're talking about (or I guess you can just use a nicely green
throwaway account to hide behind).

------
drewcrawford
From 32m 50s, one of the most wonderfully pedantic exchanges I've heard:

Q: Did you send this email Mr. Gates, on or about Aug 8, 1987?

A: I don’t remember sending it.

Q: Do you have any doubt that you sent it?

A: No it appears to be an email I sent.

Q: You recognize that this is a document produced from Microsoft’s files, do
you not?

A: No.

Q: You don’t?

A: Well how would I know that?

Q: Well, you see the document production numbers down at the bottom?

A: I have no idea what those numbers are.

Q: Do you recognize this as the form in which email has been printed out by
Microsoft?

A: I don’t know what that means. All email printed by anyone looks just like
this. So the fact that it looks like this doesn’t give me any clue as to who
printed it.

Q: Well, let’s begin with that sir. E-mail printed out by other people are not
stamped with Microsoft confidential stamps and Microsoft document production
numbers. You would agree with that?

A: That has nothing to do with printing out.

Q: Do you understand my question sir?

A: Nope.

Q: Okay. Do you see down at the bottom where there are “confidential” stamps,
and a stamp that says “Attorneys only”, document production stamps? Do you see
those?

A: I see the stamps. I can’t characterize whether they’re document production
stamps. To me they look more like you’d see on a prisoner’s uniform.

Q: You don’t have any knowledge about these stamps, it is your testimony? You
don’t know what they are?

A: I’ve never seen a stamp like that. I’ve never used a stamp like that.

Q: Haven’t you seen stamps like that in every single one of the documents that
you’ve been shown during this deposition?

A: (To counsel) Can you get me all the exhibits?

~~~
jmedwards
It looks weird, but this is what a well prepared witness is meant to do in a
deposition situation: answer only what is asked, if you don't know what is
being asked, dig in. If you don't completely recall, then you don't recall.

[http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/dec11/managing3.asp](http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/dec11/managing3.asp)

------
ynniv
Depositions are unnatural, legally technical situations. For an amusing
treatment, see [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/verbatim-what-
is-a...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/verbatim-what-is-a-
photocopier.html)

~~~
mynameishere
Someone should have informed the director and/or actor that lawyers rarely
yell and rant in depositions.

~~~
thesteamboat
Nah, they weren't going for verisimilitude* and it's funnier imagining that
the deposing lawyer, rather than trying to set up some later verbal trap, is
just honestly bewildered by the ignorance of deponent.

* From the NYTimes article introducing the video:

In this short film, I sought to creatively reinterpret the original events.
(I’ve not been able to locate any original video recordings, so I’m unsure how
closely my actors’ appearance and delivery resembles the original
participants.) My primary rule was the performance had to be verbatim -- no
words could be modified or changed from the original legal transcripts. Nor
did I internally edit the document to compress time. What you see is, word for
word, an excerpt from what the record shows to have actually unfolded.
However, I did give the actors creative range to craft their performances. As
such, this is a hybrid of documentary and fiction. We’ve taken creative
liberties in the staging and performance to imbue the material with our own
perspectives.

------
mkonecny
I'm not sure anyone here has watched the entire video. The lawyer catches on
real quick to what Bill Gates is trying to say, and it appears like Bill Gates
is being overly semantic to try and avoid answering the question.

Later on around the 30 minute mark is when Bill Gates begins to stutter and
constantly avoids directly answering the correctly phrased questions.

------
MrJagil
Thank you for a great submission.

Can anyone clarify how this lawyer system works in regard to the involvement
of fields they are not intimately familiar? I mean, I know certain lawyers
specialises in tech or corporate matters, but it is entirely unrealistic for
someone to both be knee-deep in matters of the law _and_ technology (or any
other matter they are not necessarily trained in). Do they consult with tech
experts? Study up? Guess their way through?

I'm just reminded of what i see as totally botched lawmaking in fields where
it seems a certain level of education in that field would be required to make
sound decisions on it's behalf. Might be of other reasons than education (i.e.
privacy vs government power), but watching this I can't help but feel there's
a correlation.

I assume the chasm is only getting greater the more layers of abstraction we
add to our technology stack. We're already seeing situations where the only
one who can discuss a given case properly, is the accused himself.

~~~
x0x0
I tend to agree, but I also think industries -- particularly tech -- have a
working definition of totally botched lawmaking that means lawmaking the
industry doesn't like. eg the lawsuits against Napster, that was attempting to
build a business facilitating bulk copyright infringement with vanishingly few
non-infringing uses.

~~~
stinkytaco
I think this is true of almost any industry, but it does seem especially
prevalent it tech (which also seems to attract a greater number than average
of the "I'm smarter than most" crowd). You can always claim that lawmakers
don't understand [ _insert your industry here_ ], but I suspect many
understand it better than we think, but still disagree.

~~~
colechristensen
It's fairly obvious that disturbingly many senators and congressmen in
important positions (relating to tech) have only faint ideas of things
necessary to properly make voting decisions.

There is a difference between the common incompetence of elected officials and
the existence of competent lawyers in high profile cases.

------
keypusher
Having been through a deposition myself, one of the most useful and crucial
phrases to remember is "I don't remember". It is human nature in such
situations to try and present yourself authoritatively, and to answer
questions in a positive and detailed way. However, the absolute worst thing
that can and often does happen is for the interviewer/lawyer to get you to
elaborate on something and say you remember x or y happening, then presenting
evidence to the contrary. If you don't know, or you aren't sure, or prefer not
to answer the question, just say "I don't know" or "I don't remember".

~~~
runeks
It can also be used in situations where you would incriminate yourself by
telling the truth. Mr. Gates uses it in reply to the question:

> _What did you mean when you asked Mr. Maritz whether or not, "We have a
> clear plan on what we want Apple to do to undermine Sun"?_

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhdDZk45HDI#t=2113](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhdDZk45HDI#t=2113)

~~~
pdabbadabba
Yes, if you don't mind committing perjury.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't help you here (for those of you who think it
might). You can only use that to avoid incriminating yourself _criminally_
and, then, it does not simply permit you to give whatever answer you want.
When you invoke the Fifth you have to refuse to answer the question, you can't
just lie.

~~~
CamperBob2
What does perjury have to do with claiming that you don't remember something?

~~~
wfjackson
If later it can be proven that you did really remember it and that you lied
for convenience, you can be held liable for perjury.

~~~
CamperBob2
Such proof requiring a functional MRI with integrated time-displacement
capabilities?

~~~
pdabbadabba
That, or other extrinsic evidence. The easiest would be inconsistent
deposition testimony (some lawyers are good at making you say what they want
-- don't underestimate them), but another option would be evidence of your
having done something to manifest your knowledge of the thing you claim to
have forgotten soon before or after the deposition (like, e.g., sending an
email).

And while perjury may be a stretch in most cases, there is also the matter of
the jury's opinion of you as a witness (assuming that the case eventually goes
to trial and you get confronted with your own deposition transcripts). If they
think your memory seems a tad selective, then they're apt to assume that any
fact you've "forgotten" is the worst possible fact for you. There are also
concerns like civil/criminal contempt and other sanctions against your side in
the litigation.

There is also the small matter of morality. Many of us think that you
shouldn't lie in a deposition even if you can get away with it.

------
sauere
It must be hard sitting there thinking to yourself "these people here have no
idea what the hell they are talking about", repeating the same answers over
and over again.

Therefore, i think he is handling the situation rather well.

~~~
thomasahle
It sounds like you have only watched the beginning, when they are discussing
java vs the jvm. Later we get snippets like these from Gates' own emails:

> "Do we have a clear plan on what we want Apple to do to undermine Sun?"

> "I want to get as much mileage as possible out of our browser and Java
> relationship here. In other words, a real advantage against Sun and
> Netscape."

And in a conversation Bill participated in:

> "Apple wants to keep both Netscape and Microsoft developing browsers for Mac
> -- believing if one drops out, the other will lose interest (and also not
> really wanting to pick up the development burden.) Getting Apple to do
> anything that significantly/materially disadvantages Netscape will be tough.
> Do agree that Apple should be meeting - the spirit of our cross license
> agreement and that Macoffice is the perfect club to use on them."

It's a very different Gates from the philanthrope we see today, but back in
the 90ties he was a bit of a dick.

It's a bit slow to watch it all, but the entire thing appears to be
transcribed here: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/business/longterm/micro...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/business/longterm/microsoft/documents/gatespart2.htm)

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>It's a very different Gates from the philanthrope we see today, but back in
the 90ties he was a bit of a dick.

IMO Gates the businessman is just a ruthlessly competitive adversary. I don't
even see a conflict between him then and his philanthropic activities now.

It was also covered pretty well at Groklaw
[http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107...](http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653)

~~~
thomasahle
> IMO Gates the businessman is just a ruthlessly competitive adversary.

Well, anticompetitive adversary.

> I don't even see a conflict between him then and his philanthropic
> activities now.

He certainly seems to be pretty good at both jobs.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>Well, anticompetitive adversary.

Touche

>He certainly seems to be pretty good at both jobs.

I agree, and I am glad he gave us a likeable trait within his lifetime, unlike
many of his robber-baron contemporaries and predecessors.

------
stplsd
This is from part 6, priceless:

Q And first let me ask a general question, and that is: Did you believe that
from Microsoft's standpoint it was desirable to have as many pure Java
applications as possible?

A We weren't focused on that as a goal, no.

Q In fact, is it fair to say that you preferred fewer pure Java applications
to more pure Java applications?

A We preferred more applications that took advantage of our APIs, and so we
worked with ISVs to maximize the number that took advantage of our APIs.

Q And your APIs were not pure Java APIs; correct?

A No. Some were, and some weren't.

Q Yes, sir, some were, and some weren't. But the APIs that you wanted people
to use were APIs that were not pure Java APIs; correct, sir?

A No. We were glad to have people use both.

Q Were you indifferent as to whether they used your pure Java APIs or your
proprietary APIs?

MR. HEINER: Objection.

THE WITNESS (Bill Gates): You've introduced the word proprietary, and that
completely changes the question. So help me out, what do you want to know?

Q BY MR. BOIES: Is the term "proprietary API" a term that you're familiar
with, sir?

A I don't know what you mean by it.

Q Is it a term you're familiar with in your business?

A I really don't know what you mean. You mean an API that you have a patent
on?

~~~
wfjackson
>Q Is it a term you're familiar with in your business? >A I really don't know
what you mean. You mean an API that you have a patent on?

Isn't that a good question? An API is essentially a function header.

eg. void print(string Text);

How can it be proprietary unless it was patented or something? See Oracle vs.
Google.

While talking to a court one has to be exact. Perhaps the lawyer meant an API
implementation that is copyrighted?

~~~
nl
Bill Gate's _answer_ was " You mean an API that you have a patent on?"

If the lawyer had said "Yes", he could have answered "No": Gates knows that
patents don't really apply.

Otherwise the lawyer would have had to define it, which runs the clock down on
how long Gates had to actually answer questions.

~~~
wfjackson
Yes, Bill Gates answer was the question I was referring to as a good one. My
formatting of the quoted content was a little messed up in the first line.

>If the lawyer had said "Yes", he could have answered "No":

No to what? The original question was whether Gates was indifferent to
developer usage pure vs. proprietary APIs.

This was an attempt by the lawyer to color the APIs as proprietary while
asking about pure Java vs. Microsoft's API functions and Gates wanted to know
exactly he meant by that term before giving an answer to the question which
could imply that was agreeing with the lawyer that the API was "proprietary",
which could mean different things to different people.

It's like a lawyer asking "Do you like the brand of the beer you stole?",

The proper answer is "What do you mean, stole?".

Not, "No, I don't like Budweiser".

------
dorafmon
Can anyone explain why the lawyer is so keen on making Bill Gates to confirm
that he thought that Java is a competitive threat?

~~~
johnchristopher
IANAL but I suppose it is to paint a certain picture of BG's intentions
regarding Java which would be then used to motivate the decision of the
judge/jurors [0].

[0] Your legal system may varies but it's often about judging the intention
and then the consequences.

~~~
dorafmon
So it can be used against him? How?

~~~
johnchristopher
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law)

If the lawyer can prove or make BG admits JAVA is a threat then BG's actions
against JAVA can be seen as deliberate rather than accidental or unfortunate.

Because the "Oops I didn't think tweaking JAVA API so it works only on Windows
would hurt SUN that is trying to sell a JAVA thingie that works everywhere"
card wouldn't work that well and it would established deliberate questionable
practice.

In this case it might or might not be something like that.

------
manish_gill
I don't get it. Is this the same deposition which was such disastrous that the
judge laughed in court while the video tape was being played?
[http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9811/17/judgelaugh.ms....](http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9811/17/judgelaugh.ms.idg/)

I talked it over with a law-school friend of mine and he agrees that the
initial deposition was handled very badly by Gates, so much so that it is used
as an example of "what not to do in a deposition" in law schools. I wonder
what people here are praising Gates about. :)

Edit: Here's another article:
[http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive...](http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/12/07/252139/index.htm)

~~~
aragot
Thank you for this valuable background. So as I understand, Bill Gates'
deposition is legally correct but so terribly unpopular that it's the wrong
thing to do, am I right?

Besides, what was the outcome of the trial? If I understand:

\- It started in May 1998,

\- In April 2000, it was judged that Microsoft acted consistently in an anti-
competitive wat,

\- In June 2000, judge Jackson orders the break-up of Microsoft into two
companies. It was reverted in September 2001, presumably because it doesn't
make sense _anymore_.

\- In November 1998, Microsoft is ordered to stop selling products which
contain an incompatible version of Java. Sun wins this ruling.

\- In 1997, Microsoft is ordered not to require OEMs to ship IE with Windows.

It looks to me that all those interviews have led to very little outcomes. Any
expert's opinion on this?

[http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2002/11/35212](http://archive.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2002/11/35212)

~~~
manish_gill
I'm just going to paraphrase some quotes from the discussion I had with the
aforementioned friend, since I think he puts it much more succinctly

"""

Indeed. I mean, people think that Gates is being so clever with his pedantic
word-play jargon games, but they are forgetting is that the Federal prosecutor
is smarter at word games, is well versed in law, and can easily pick out
minutiae. He would have just made Gates wait 6 hours and ask the question
again and again and again, until finally, he writes up a report saying how
uncooperative Mr. Bill Gates was during the deposition (whose entire point is
that you are supposed to cooperate) and thus making the case of plea
bargaining even harder. (He is quite smart. Probably top of the class at
Harvard law knowing how federal prosecutors are hired.)

The whole idea of a deposition is you try and co-operate. If I were a judge do
you see why I'd take a very dim view of that tape? The article is cnn's main
story from that year.

    
    
        But as a sign of how worried Microsoft is about the effect of the videotape, the company brought in a hired gun to talk to reporters about how depositions are typically combative and involve "jousting" and, in that sense, how Gates' deposition was "unremarkable.""
    

When you have to do that, you know something is wrong. Oh and btw that is
completely disregarding how it affects public opinion which in turn might
harden Justice dept through pressure via political bodies (congress and white
house) that are susceptible to public opinion. Remember, all depositions are
public record.

It might seem quite funny and clever to you but an average American outside
the Valley probably sees it very different - an overpaid arrogant CEO.

"""

As for how come there was very little outcome, apparently it's a fairly well
established claim in various law journals that the whole reason MSFT case
failed was because after 9/11, they didn't seem to want to go after an
American champion. Or MSFT would've been broken apart. Prosecuting them
changed as political priorities changed. (Date of settlement is November '01).
And a Republican revival started around the same time.

Also note that Gates retired a few months later. Official reasoning was given
as him feeling burned out, apparently.

~~~
aragot
Great wrtie-up. Thanks.

Europe wasn't so lenient. Microsoft paid more than $2bn in fines for Windows
Media Player and for not giving the choice of web browser in some versions of
the OS. Nellie Kroes was the leader here. Including €561 for skipping the
browser choice dialog, which was mandatory because of a settlement of
Microsoft, for 14 months in 2009.

This is 3%-6% of their worlwide revenue ($30bn circa 2002, $60bn circa 2009).

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_comp...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case)

[http://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-
global-...](http://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-global-
revenue-since-2002/)

I wonder if European trial customs are a bit more intuitive and less based on
the preciseness of contracts/laws than in US, leading to shorter, more
intuitive decisions?

------
gearoidoc
Handles it like a champ IMHO.

------
mandeepj
This article[1] is worth mentioning in this context as we talk about
Microsoft's anti-trust policies.

[1] -
[http://www.hanselman.com/blog/MicrosoftKilledMyPappy.aspx](http://www.hanselman.com/blog/MicrosoftKilledMyPappy.aspx)

------
coralreef
You really see the pragmatic, poker playing mentality that Gates has been
described as here.

------
elwell
23:48 -
[http://youtu.be/HhdDZk45HDI?t=23m48s](http://youtu.be/HhdDZk45HDI?t=23m48s)

My attention perked as I expected to hear a familiar phrase from Pinky & the
Brain, and it would have fit the context.

------
misiti3780
This is pretty painful to watch - he seem very awkward - its pretty funny when
he gets pissed off at the guy about 5 minutes it "Give me a break!"

~~~
ISL
I took the bait; it happens at the 12 minute mark.

Gates does an impressive job of staying sharp through incessant questioning.
The opposing counsel has a job to do, but it's unpleasant to experience.

------
Geee
Hmmm.. The Microsoft-Apple deal in 1997 wasn't signed when Jobs made the
announcement. He just went through it. Was that known? It's @40:10

------
Plough_Jogger
Incredibly diplomatic.

------
yuhong
Trivia: The last MSJVM updates were actually the DST updates released in 2007
under the extended hotfix support for DST program (that costed $4,000 per
year). Not for the US DST changes, but the ones in Australia and other
countries.

~~~
kalleboo
I feel sorry for the poor soul still supporting an MS JVM application in
2007...

------
enupten
I'm always surprised by how idiots who haven't the slightest clue about things
they are adjudicating, having the temerity to believe that they do.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Pot, meet Kettle.

~~~
CamperBob2
You can't possibly imagine that lawyers, legislators, or judges are the least
bit qualified to design an operating system.

That was my whole problem with the antitrust trial... it amounted to a bunch
of anklebiting by well-intentioned but hopelessly unqualified people.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>You can't possibly imagine that lawyers, legislators, or judges are the least
bit qualified to design an operating system.

No. Of course not. I was pointing out the irony of HN user enupten's criticism
of the lawyer deposing Gates, while knowing little about being a lawyer. My
remark relies upon my assumption that enupten is more likely to be some sort
of a techie than a lawyer (and not both).

OTOH, you can't possibly accept MS' weak argument that their hands were forced
by engineering decisions, rather than engaging in illegal anti-competitive
business practices for the sake of harming their competitors. The mere fact
that the government's lawyers and judges were not well suited to create their
own competing software products isn't proof that they were wrong about the
legality of MS' conduct.

>That was my whole problem with the antitrust trial... it amounted to a bunch
of anklebiting by well-intentioned but hopelessly unqualified people.

I was disappointed in the results of the trial as well. What outcome(s) would
you have preferred?

~~~
CamperBob2
My preference is a bit outside the mainstream, in that I don't agree that the
trial should have happened in the first place. I've never seen Microsoft beat
anyone in the marketplace who didn't deserve it. Like Google and Apple, they
were lucky to have some of the least-competent competition in the history of
business. When those competitors proved inept at defeating Microsoft in the
marketplace, they went whining to the DoJ.

I believe that any other consumer-friendly OS, if exposed to the same critical
scrutiny that Windows faced, would have fared just as badly in the quality and
security areas where Windows has traditionally taken most of its bashing.
Windows didn't win over OS/2, MacOS, and Linux because of any skulduggery on
Bill Gates's part (and yes, I agree, there was plenty of legitimate
skulduggery to accuse Microsoft of perpetrating.) It won because the others
sucked even more.

Moreover, I believe that the network effects that arose from the dominance of
Windows were far more beneficial than the sort of meaningless competition that
prevailed in earlier personal computing eras, where everyone was selling
proprietary hardware and OSes that were just different enough from everyone
else's to make life annoying and expensive for independent developers. Modern
mobile developers don't know how lucky they are that they only have to target
two 800-pound gorillas.

So I disagreed strongly with the DoJ's antitrust efforts, and would have even
without the involvement of figures like Judge Jackson whose legal talents
would have been better spent adjudicating parking tickets. The whole process
made me pretty cynical about antitrust actions and our legal system in
general.

------
sprw121
Bill Gates has some serious swag

------
haneefmubarak
Even though I generally dislike the man, I gotta say I admire how he handled
that. Especially considering how much of a prick the other person was being.

If I had been in the same scenario, eventually I would have responded:

"Are you trying to obtuse or are do you simply lack basic comprehension
skills?"

~~~
mtrpcic
If you don't mind my asking, why do you dislike Bill Gates?

~~~
haneefmubarak
He has strongly opposed free software for a long, long time. Additionally, his
company has been a strong proponent of DRM for ages and just keeps making it
worse.

That wouldn't be so bad if it worked with few problems, but somehow, I always
seem to get caught up in the DRM bugs in Microsoft's implementations.

~~~
V-2
Also Internet Explorer, with its incompatibilities, yet very large user base,
and Microsoft trying to enforce its own web standards - held the internet back
for a long time. Web apps could have been better and cheaper to develop if it
wasn't for this factor.

~~~
wfjackson
Reminds me of the -webkit tags that became the defacto standard forcing Opera,
mobile Firefox and mobile IE to support them since web developers can't be
bothered to code to standards or update their code. If it works in
Safari/Chrome it ships because of their very large user base in mobile,
exactly the same situation with IE.

[http://css.dzone.com/articles/why-webkit-new-ie6-trap-
vendor](http://css.dzone.com/articles/why-webkit-new-ie6-trap-vendor)
[http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/australian-
technology/the-w...](http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/australian-
technology/the-webkit-prefix-will-ruin-the-mobile-web/)

Not to mention Chrome developers "trying to enforce their own web standards":

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7184912](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7184912)

Progress on web standards have always been spearheaded by browser
implementations before being standardized, there were many non standard
extensions that Netscape implemented that IE had to add support back in the
day. IE6 was a particularly bad issue because major browser releases were tied
to Windows releases and Longhorn/Vista had to be reset and delayed.

~~~
V-2
Yes. I am not saying that Microsoft has monopoly for this. But they had better
leverage than anybody else in the desktop era (thanks to the way IE was
bundled with Windows) and did it for large scale. Which made them disliked.
I'm not a supporter of Google, which is becoming more of a bad guy than
Microsoft these days.

