decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
About the Iowa class action lawsuit
Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 07:39 PM EST

Well, there is no news about the SCO-IBM and SCO-Novell lawsuits, but the news that really attracted my attention is that Microsoft settled the Iowa class action lawsuit, after a fight about getting access to documents used by the expert witnesses. I can not and will not comment on the fairness of the secret setlement.

Anyway I think that the disappearance of the Iowa lawsuit website is a good occasion to announce the availability of our Bill Gates deposition page. We've transcoded the original wmv files from the Iowa websites into ogg audio and video files.

-- MathFox

  


About the Iowa class action lawsuit | 403 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
How's PJ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 08:13 PM EST
Get better soon, PJ :(

[ Reply to This | # ]

The latest on PJ here
Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 08:13 PM EST

SCO to Pamela Jones: please call


Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 08:14 PM EST
Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Here
Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 08:16 PM EST
Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks for the new page!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 08:16 PM EST
Whether or not you got my message, thank you!

[ Reply to This | # ]

About the Iowa class action lawsuit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 08:19 PM EST
Did you put them out as .wmv so the windoz impaired can view them?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I Was Wondering About That
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 08:21 PM EST
Hey, Mathfox!

So, rather than let history repeat itself (the files vanishing into the ether),
you made history not repeat itself, so the individual history (the testimonies)
can repeat themselves.

Good work.

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft settled quickly to avoid more facts coming to light
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 08:22 PM EST
The speed with which Microsoft has acted to settle this lawsuit reflects its
serious concern regarding the multitude of facts coming to light regarding its
ongoing anti-competitive behavior.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bill Gates Depositions Also Available on Internet Archive
Authored by: th80 on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 08:34 PM EST
http://www.archive.org/details/Bill_Gates_testimony_US_v_Microsoft_1998_ video_p1

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: Gates deposition page
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 08:37 PM EST
Absolutely cool.

Thank you (for that, and for 1000 other efforts).

WB

[ Reply to This | # ]

problem: theora video runs at 2x audio rate
Authored by: jbeale on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 08:42 PM EST
I tried the ffmpeg2theora encoder on the WMV files, but gave up because the audio did not stay in sync with the video. I only checked one file so far from the groklaw page, but it has the same problem. Watch the first ten seconds of this file: Gates1Low.ogg ...this starts out OK, but it quickly goes out of sync. The audio is playing at normal speed, but the video is playing at 2x normal. I am using the VLC media player 0.8.6a. It has been fine with other Ogg Theora files I've tried.

By the way, I believe the Internet Archive site has correct video files.

www.archive.org/details/Bill_Gates_testimony_US_v_Microsoft_1998_video_ p1

[ Reply to This | # ]

About the Iowa class action lawsuit
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 08:55 PM EST
I've rehosted some of the docs at http://www.sonic.net/~undo c/comes_v_microsoft/ and will probably make more available from the old site when I get some time.

Andrew Schulman

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Net remembers...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 09:07 PM EST
So, dear Micro$oft, thought you could sweep the dirty laundry under the rug yet
again, did you? Not this time--you can run, but your footprints will be a trail
of your evil deeds leading right to your doorstep.

Never again will the record be flushed down the memory hole.

You are being watched. You cannot hide. The end is nigh. Your time of
wreaking havoc on the computer industry to make obscene profits for yourself is
coming to an end. Nevermore shall you escape the public exposure of your dirty
tricks.

Putting the removal of the exhibits from the Web into your settlement terms (I
of course have no proof, but why else would the site evaporate like that?)
worked in the past, but now the Net has a memory--and the exhibits will not be
lost.

Nevermore, Nevermore.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What impact will this have on the undocumented APIs
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 10:05 PM EST
I think the fact of the undocumented APi's is the real reason why MS settled so fast. They wouldn't want too much attention brought to bear on this fact, or to have too much digging to see what else hasn't been disclosed as per the court's order.

I don't think they care so much about Bill Gate's testimony as they do the secrets they have and are still keeping. Who knows what undocumented APIs there are in Vista, and what competitive advantage that gives them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about the rest of the evidence?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 10:55 PM EST
The site where all the transcripts of the case, the depositions, etc.,
www.iowaconsumercase.org, now requires a password. Has the site been mirrored
or has MS successfully used this settlement to sweep all it's dirt under the rug
again?

Karl O. Pinc
kop meme com

[ Reply to This | # ]

Iowa class action lawsuit involved Windows Lovers/Users
Authored by: iceworm on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 11:49 PM EST

My take is the plaintifs were willing to settle for money (and its various equivalents such as discounted software) because they had no differences with Microsoft on principles just on the price that was inflated by the Microsoft monopoly. Even though the plaintifs seemed to be concerned about the bag of dirty tricks that Microsoft had been using, they were still willing to deal with a thief and a scoundrel if he gave them a break today and maybe promised to play nicely in the future. Ha!

Sad! So much for ethics in the commercial and private worlds.

[ Reply to This | # ]

About the Iowa class action lawsuit
Authored by: inode_buddha on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 12:47 AM EST
Way to go, MathFox! IIRC during the Slashdot discussion of the settlement,
everybody was trying to get their own copy of the Iowa site. Now Groklaw has
one, which will make it *much* more difficult to hide the information.

---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio

"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

About the Iowa class action lawsuit
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 03:05 AM EST
About the Iowa class action lawsuit
Has anyone else been reading this title as pertaining to that particular design of US Navy battleship called the Iowa Class? It brings to my mind an image of the USS Iowa in action against our favorite Redmondians.

---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How come the Theora is so much smaller than WMV?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 04:05 AM EST
Is the Theora the same quality as the WMV? Because the filesize difference is
quite big!

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's not a secret settlement
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 05:29 AM EST
FTA: Details are scheduled to be released at a hearing on April 20.
Doesn't anyone read TFA any more? Come back PJ! - giafly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Preserving the docs too
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 06:11 AM EST
Nice work, Mathfox!

Now that those timeless videos cannot be "disappeared" again, maybe
Groklaw could set aside a little more space to preserve those (possibly more
interesting) documents for posterity too. On Microsoft's say-so, they can be
"disappeared" from www.archive.org too. It's all too apparent they
need to be preserved and where better to come to find them than Groklaw itself?

---
I would rather stand corrected than sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dirty Dealings in the Iowa Case
Authored by: Griffin3 on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 08:39 AM EST

The link about expert discovery is rather disturbing, though. Apparently, lawyers for the plaintiffs (not Microsoft) hid three expert reports for nearly a year under some shell game which basically consisted of:

You asked to review the documents. Now, 'review' is composed of two words, 'view' which means 'to see', and 're' which means 'again'. Since you are asking to review the documents, you are asking to see them again, so you've already seen them, so we don't need to produce them.

Sounds like something out of The Princess Bride, or more recently, to sort of dirty dealing you'd expect from SCO's lawyers. Now, someone how has read the transcripts may be able to comment more fully on this: but you have to wonder, greater issues aside: when the side you are rooting for decides to [has to] resort to such tactics as the meaning of the word "review"; maybe you are rooting for the wrong side.

Or maybe I misunderstood the whole deal PJ was talking about, regarding legal ethics, and the noble profession of law. Is it only supposed to apply to the other guys?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Getting Access to Documents" link
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 09:13 AM EST
Holley claimed that lawyers at the Minneapolis firm of Zelle Hoffmann had split the word review - into re-view - to create their interpretation that Microsoft was only seeking documents that the witnesses had looked at twice. James Reece, a partner at Zelle Hoffmann, which is co-counsel with Des Moines lawyer Roxanne Conlin for the plaintiffs, admitted to Holley that expert witness Netz had suggested the unusual interpretation. Reece had adopted it until a second court order on Nov. 28 made it clear that Microsoft wanted all witness documents.
"I do not think that word means what you think it means, your honor" said attorney Inigo Montoya.

"Ryan?"
"Yes, Darl?"
"We need to hire that expert witness. She's got some fresh ideas. We didn't distribute Linux, we dis-tributed it(Definition 2b here) , we said it was worthless."
"Right, Darl!"
"And we didn't repudiate the GPL, we re-pudiated it! We pudiated it twice!"
"What does 'pudiate' mean, Darl?"
"I don't know, but it sounds great, doesn't it?"
"I'll get David Boise on the phone."

Plaintiff's lawyer Kent Williams claimed Tulchin stepped over a line when he told jurors that Microsoft had not engaged in anti-competitive behavior. Microsoft, Williams noted, was found guilty of anti-trust acts in federal court in 1999.

Tulchin said his remarks referred to periods before and after the 1999 federal case.
"Well, they weren't engaged in anti-competitive behavior," he added. "Except when they were."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nice Memo from Iowa
Authored by: schestowitz on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 09:42 AM EST
,----[ Quote ]
| From: Bill Gates
| Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1989 9:44 AM
| To: Bob Muglia (Exchange); Jon DeVaan; Steven Sinofsky
| Cc: Paul Mariz
| Subject: Office rendering
|
| One thing we have got to change is our strategy -- allowing Office
| documents to be rendered very well by OTHER PEOPLES BROWSERS is one of the
| most destructive things we could do to the company.
|
| We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office
| documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.
|
| Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has
| to to destroy Windows.
`----

http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02991.pdf

Share the knowledge, folks.

---
Roy S. Schestowitz, Ph.D. Candidate in Medical Biophysics
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://othellomaster.com - GPL'd 3-D

[ Reply to This | # ]

I am scared for PJ:
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 10:30 AM EST
We should not take these threats lightly.

If Darl (and crew)are facing the loss of money and freedom for stock crimes, he
may feel soliciting the murder of PJ would not increase his prison sentence that
much.

---
If you love your bike, let it go.
If it comes back, you high sided.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

I remain unconviced that 'Darl Mcbride' is a real person
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 11:08 AM EST
Has anyone met him? If you've shaken hands, are you sure it wasn't simply an
actor playing the part of 'Darl Mcbride'. Definitely sure?

Frankly, the evidence points towards Mr Mcbride being a front of some sort...
Consider - 'Darl' has paid a vast amount of money trying to uphold claims which
seem to have no evidence.

Surely if 'Darl' was a person, he would have re-evaluated by now.

I can only conclude based on the actions of the 'Darl' front that he must be a
figment.

"Who could be behind the figment?", I hear you ask with one voice.
Perhaps Pamela Jones! Consider: it's the actions of 'Darl' that has made Groklaw
famous! Were it not for 'Darl', there would have been no Groklaw. Clearly Pamela
Jones benefits, and should be considered a prime suspect.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I feel bad for PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 02:31 PM EST
It would seem that sco has accomplished at least one of their aims: that being
to silence PJ. I think it is reasonable to assume that even if PJ went on a
health break, that she now knows there is a subpoena with her name on it waiting
to be served. I tried to find what are the consequences of avoiding service but
could not find anything relevant. Can someone in the know tell us what they may
be ? She probably also can not consult her lawyer on this because she/he would
undoubtedly tell her to accept service. To advice otherwise would seem to be
obstruction. if her lawyer contacted sco, sco would probably cause her attorney
to accept service on her behalf. I do not know what PJ's strategy is, but it
would seem to be a short term one. I do not believe She can not stay hidden long
enough for sco to lose interest. Can one fight a subpoena that has not yet been
served ? What will be the effect on groklaw and her reporting if she is
subpeona'd

[ Reply to This | # ]

Email from Roxanne Conlin
Authored by: th80 on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 05:24 PM EST
Hey folks.

I just got an email from Roxanne Conlin. For those of you concerned about
redistributing the documents from the former iowaconsumercase.com/.org website.

Here it is verbatim, I only removed my email address and name.

-----------------------------------

From: "Roxanne Conlin" <Roxanne@roxanneconlinlaw.com>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 5:11 PM
To: "TH" <XXXXX>
Subject: RE: iowaconsumercase.com/.org website

Yes they are forever in the public record. There is no problem with reposting
them or otherwise making use of the materials. Roxanne

-----Original Message-----
From: "TH" [mailto:XXXXX]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:16 PM
To: "Roxanne Conlin" <Roxanne@roxanneconlinlaw.com>
Subject: iowaconsumercase.com/.org website

Ms. Conlin,

I know someone who collected the documents from the iowaconsumercase.com/.org
website before it was taken down. I'm assuming that since these documents were
made available on the Internet website iowaconsumercase.com / .org, they are a
matter of public record and may be reposted elsewhere on the net. Can you
confirm?

Kind regards,
TH

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dirty tricks and MS Office (from MS vs. Comes case)
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 05:38 PM EST
The MS vs. Comes case is a goldmine of information that explains what is going on today.

For example, in PX02991.pdf (an email with the subject line "Office rendering"), Bill Gates makes it clear that they are NOT going to allow other documents to really work with Office: "allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other people's browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities. Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destroy Windows." This was back in December 1998 (about 8 years ago), but it explain Microsoft's past and current behavior. Instead of supporting the standard that everyone was working on, after the standard (OpenDocument) was complete they quickly shuttled through their own proprietary spec.

[ Reply to This | # ]

About the Iowa class action lawsuit
Authored by: rc on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 07:03 PM EST
Ok. Now I'm getting irritated.

IS THERE ANY WAY I can start and CONTROL a class action lawsuit such that I can keep stupid agreements like this from happening? I am NOT interested in boatloads of money (although that WOULD be nice :-) - I want doggone microsoft to quit damaging the software industry.

Yes, DAMAGE. I am a software developer, and IMHO, and in my professional opinion microsoft's monopoly has been damaging to the software industry as a whole.

They need to be stopped.

And, no I'm not kidding. I'm fed up, and want them to just go away and let the world get back to being productive

grumble grumble...

---
rc

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Filing in TSG v IBM --- It's A Monster!
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, February 16 2007 @ 07:37 PM EST
Just checked PACER, TSG has filed a redacted version of their Memorandum in
Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on TSG's contract claims. It's
in seven -- count 'em -- seven PDFs, four for the main document and three for
the Appendix. Total page count taken together --- 330. PDFs on the way to
Mathfox (if his inbox doesn't choke on a message this large).

Also, this filing is a scan-type PDF, so it'll need OCR and markup.


---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

This would be a dumb move on PJ's part.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 17 2007 @ 05:32 AM EST
Jim Greer in his deposition claims that PJ sent him an email containing the telphone number of an IBM attorney. IANAL, but wouldn't this provide grounds for SCOG to wish to find out what other direct involvement she may have had with their cases?
See page 18

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trial transcripts uploaded; state of MS source code
Authored by: aschulman on Tuesday, February 20 2007 @ 03:10 PM EST
I've just taken all the trial transcripts which had been available at IowaConsumerCase.org, and re-hosted them at:

http://www.sonic.net/~undo c/comes_v_microsoft

It's just a bare-bones directory right now. At some point (after I've completed my 2nd year law school finals on March 14 :-), I'll start putting together explanations of what is interesting in these materials.

Tom Harney has agreed to take care of re-hosting the several thousand plaintiff's exhibits (mostly Microsoft internal memos and emails) which has been public at the plaintiff's web site. The material may be of limited use (even with Google indexing of the OCR text) without some explanation, which, again, I hope to work on after March 14.

One other item of note is the transcript of a hearing in Comes v. Microsoft that was held on Nov. 9, 2006. The hearing regarded Microsoft's stated inability to produce all source code for Windows XP. The fascinating (to me, anyway) subject of the state of Microsoft's source code was also touched on at page 9 of my supplemental expert report. One of the documents cited there, titled “Windows XP Components Not Found In Source Tree” (attachment to Microsoft’s Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause), does not seem to have been made public.

Andrew

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.06 seconds