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

121–130 of 139 posts

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

#121

Post by aaron695 »

quelsolaar wrote: post #65
bananamerica wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was really not the focus of the doc. As the title implies, they wanted to take a peek in the interesting ideas going on in his mind right now.

I was hoping we we would find more "Inside bill's brain", then just toilets.

Toilets are a fucking big problem.

Toilets are one of the reason why we left a past of disease and death from sewage contamination.

Yet open defecation is a problem in so much of the world.

So this is exactly what I wanted to see how he deals with. A hard problem that is so vital. How does his brain tackle that. Especially how it's unlikely a computer problem

But they did totally miss the mark on talking about it, it was what I wanted exactly to see and was disappointed it was so disappointing.

Maybe we couldn't tackle it. But I have seen other specials where he had made a unique start on the problem.

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

#122

Post by icelancer »

Fezzik wrote: post #102
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…

Any and all depositions are recorded, not just those the USG does. Generally just audio though, in my experience. It is one of the primary methods used to (attempt to) impeach witnesses, along with obviously being used to gather evidence. I handled multi-million dollar mesothelioma cases and we had both audio recording and someone transcribing the testimony of deponents at every deposition. Other firms occasionally f…

All of mine were audio/transcript only. No video. The biggest problem in Gates' depositions is his body language and posture. Not answers.

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

#123

Post by icelancer »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #119
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.

Five under my belt. None with video.

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

#124

Post by angrais »

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?

I am aware that posture, tone etc are important factors in communication. My question above asked WHY they are important in this context. Specifically, why the OP thinks they are important given they have been in such a scenario.

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

#125

Post by dependenttypes »

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.

> But to what extent was it available in a polished package?

To a large extent. Both Smalltalk and Erlang were mature at that point in time.

> everything in rust was available in other languages

I am not doubting you but are you aware of any other language with affine types? I am not.

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

#126

Post by dependenttypes »

smt88 wrote: post #83
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.

What is the single language that had all these features?

Smalltalk and Erlang for everything except the "webapps" part. For that there was flash.

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

#127

Post by dundarious »

_-___________-_ wrote: post #99
dundarious wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've watched almost 2 hours of the deposition videos now, and I think Gates went far beyond trying to seek extreme clarity. The diversion in part 4 about document stamps is a case in point. It is an adversarial process, so you must not rely on the usual expectation that colleagues will take the charitable interpretation of your words, but Gates being unable to even possibly understand what his own emails mean, is eva…

"Raising suspicion" isn't really a concern in this context. And of course he understands what his own emails mean. Seeking extreme clarity when discussing them is not the same as not understanding them.

We seem to disagree about the seeking extreme clarity issue -- I believe he was intentionally obfuscating, or at least have that suspicion.

As for suspicion, from the article:

---

At one point, Thomas Penfield Jackson, the judge hearing the case, chuckled, too. When Microsoft lawyers argued during a closed-door session that the deposition was turning into a side show and government lawyers should be barred from showing any more segments during the trial, the judge denied the motion, saying: "If anything, I think your problem is with your witness, not with the way in which his testimony is being presented." Jackson continued:

"I think it's evident to every spectator that, for whatever reasons, in many respects Mr. Gates has not been particularly responsive to his deposition interrogation. Everybody at your table has reflected skepticism as the testimony is presented."

---

I'm characterizing the "whatever reasons" as suspicions. I suspect the judges did come to a conclusion on those reasons when it came time to deliver their opinion, and those reasons were damaging.

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

#128

Post by Beldin »

zeroimpl wrote: post #78
Beldin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gates wasn't splitting hairs there, though. "Concerned about" could mean... That's why I think he should have taken his own interpersonal and forced that through. Which browser was he concerned about? Internet Explorer. Why? Because it's their product - in the browser space, that one is literally his main concern. Evoking a "That's not what i meant" response comes across rather differently than the wordplay shown h…

The question cleverly prevented that - it said "non-Microsoft browsers"

Missed that. I stand corrected.

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

#129

Post by Beldin »

function_seven wrote: post #29
Beldin wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, he should have immediately replied "Internet Explorer". Because that's the browser his company makes, so, amongst browsers, that should have been his main concern. No need for wordplay, no looking at competition. Just the concern you'd expect from the CEO: a focus on their own product.

The question was phrased to avoid that response: > Boies: What non-Microsoft browsers were you concerned about in January of 1996?

My bad, I stand corrected.

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

#130

Post by dekhn »

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…

Nearly everybody I know who lived through that trial and works in the internet biz has eventually concluded that MSFT did the right think bundling IE in the OS. (I've had that discussion with a lot of people after somebody asked me point blank exactly what was wrong with including a DLL that did HTTP GETs and showed the results graphically on screen in an OS).

Another thing I've learned is that modern CEOs are now expected to both be sucessfull businesspeople, and also humane enough to look good in a deposition and be skilled at deflecting questions.

Post reply on HN