Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Revisiting the spectacular failure that was the Bill Gates deposition

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 139 posts

Re: Revisiting the spectacular failure that was the Bill Gates deposition

#111

Post by jariel »

adventured wrote: post #43

> No longer the Goliath it once was—in large part because of the ascendance of companies like Google, Facebook, and Apple made possible by a settlement Microsoft signed Hahaha, haha, ha. I'll just stop you right there, Dan Goodin. Microsoft is several times the goliath they were at their Windows monopoly / anti-trust days peak. If you had to pick the company that will be the most profitable tech company five years fr…

Those other companies became successful in other domains.

Google internet search, Apple king of Mobile, Facebook Social.

They are all tech but in a way their core businesses are totally unlike one another.

So long as 'Web Browsers happened' - anti-trust or not - then history would be just the same.

Re: Revisiting the spectacular failure that was the Bill Gates deposition

#112

Post by Aerroon »

robotresearcher wrote: post #67
Gunax wrote: post #56

I don't agree with the article at all. I think it's equating two very different anti-trust cases. Apple maintains control of what its users can install on their own devices--Microsoft never did that. Just offering a free software should not be considered anti-trust. For one, browsers have been unfairly singled out. Why not ban MS Paint or notepad too? How about solitaire? Now if Microsoft had restricted users from in…

> It doesn't matter if Gates was kind or rude The legal system is made of people, and people are exquisitely sensitive to social stuff. It's just not expedient to ignore that.

On that front, you could argue that using tone and posture could be used as a deflection. Discussions around the case will often dedicate some of the time discussing this tone and posture. This makes it easier to claim that the opposition is biased against Gates over something that shouldn't matter.

Re: Revisiting the spectacular failure that was the Bill Gates deposition

#113

Post by gok »

bawolff wrote: post #72
dependenttypes wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything that you mentioned was already available at the time in other languages. This is not innovation.

But to what extent was it available in a polished package? For example, everything in rust was available in other languages, i would still say it was innovative because it brought all that together into a polished package that made the right tradeoffs for mainstream usage.

Java? Polished?

Re: Revisiting the spectacular failure that was the Bill Gates deposition

#114

Post by yholio »

jjeaff wrote: post #84
icelancer wrote: post #37

This was written by someone who has no idea what a deposition is about, or is intentionally misrepresenting it. The USG's depositions were PR stunts, filmed on purpose to make Gates look bad. If you've ever been deposed (and I have), then you know that Gates' approach was close to optimal when dealing with lawyers. Bill's biggest mistake was having a terrible attitude and bad posture when answering questions. He made…

If you want to see a more recent example of how to handle a deposition, search the Marcus Limonis depositions on youtube. In my opinion he is an even better textbook case of how to handle a deposition.

Lemonis says "I don't recall" about 10000 times in the span of 3 hours. I understand it's excelent attorney advice, but should Gates have tried the same thing he would have looked even worse in the court of public opinion. His diversions have at least some tact compared to Lemonis' bluntness.

Re: Revisiting the spectacular failure that was the Bill Gates deposition

#115

Post by dep_b »

listenallyall wrote: post #79
Gunax wrote: post #56

I don't agree with the article at all. I think it's equating two very different anti-trust cases. Apple maintains control of what its users can install on their own devices--Microsoft never did that. Just offering a free software should not be considered anti-trust. For one, browsers have been unfairly singled out. Why not ban MS Paint or notepad too? How about solitaire? Now if Microsoft had restricted users from in…

I agree. Microsoft's strongest argument was that the features of an "OS" are fluid, ever-evolving, and un-definable. OS'es were all text-based, until one day they weren't and the GUI dominated. Win 95 had no Winsock or TCP/IP stack built-in, 98 did. File Explorer. Start Button. And as you say, the presence of MS Paint and the Calculator and Solitaire show that exact inclusions/exclusions are arbitrary. MS could have…

I think 3.11 still needed a third party TCP/IP stack, not 95.

Re: Revisiting the spectacular failure that was the Bill Gates deposition

#117

Post by Treblemaker »

gilrain wrote: post #85
angrais wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please expand on WHY posture/tone/etc are important? W

Could you explain how it is possible not to understand that posture, tone, etc are important?

No. If someone makes the claim, "X is important", it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to substantiate that claim.

Re: Revisiting the spectacular failure that was the Bill Gates deposition

#118

Post by grogenaut »

freshbob wrote: post #88
grogenaut wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been deposed once the other lawyer spent 12 minutes asking me questions around a thing. The crux of the matter was if I had been verbally informed of what a line item was or if it was illegal to charge for said line item. This line item was unmarked on my receipt but marked on a different customers receipt as an illegal item to charge for. Lawyer tried constantly to get me to answer a question that would set t…

There was a reason it was the dining room. The guy wanted to make you feel comfortable, forget all about the deposition and just have a chat... so he can nail you to the cross with your own words.

Way to read. MY LAWYERS room. The end of the deposition was THEIR lawyer realizing they had no shot. The settled a few days later which is what we wanted.

Re: Revisiting the spectacular failure that was the Bill Gates deposition

#119

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

icelancer wrote: post #37

This was written by someone who has no idea what a deposition is about, or is intentionally misrepresenting it. The USG's depositions were PR stunts, filmed on purpose to make Gates look bad. If you've ever been deposed (and I have), then you know that Gates' approach was close to optimal when dealing with lawyers. Bill's biggest mistake was having a terrible attitude and bad posture when answering questions. He made…

".. filmed on purpose to make Gates look bad."

It is routine to film in-person depositions.

Re: Revisiting the spectacular failure that was the Bill Gates deposition

#120

Post by nodamage »

adventured wrote: post #43

> No longer the Goliath it once was—in large part because of the ascendance of companies like Google, Facebook, and Apple made possible by a settlement Microsoft signed Hahaha, haha, ha. I'll just stop you right there, Dan Goodin. Microsoft is several times the goliath they were at their Windows monopoly / anti-trust days peak. If you had to pick the company that will be the most profitable tech company five years fr…

> The anti-trust agreement Microsoft signed is part of the reason for that massive boom in prosperity.

This history doesn't sound right to me. Microsoft languished for a decade after that agreement, completely missing out on the mobile revolution in the process. Their resurgence seems to have mostly occurred in the past 5-6 years (since Nadella took over), so it seems kind of odd to credit an anti-trust agreement signed 15 years prior.

Post reply on HN