Bristol update: MS lawyers muzzle Compaq witness

Don't answer questions about intimidation - or else


MS on Trial Bristol's lawsuit against Microsoft is scheduled to go to the jury this week, and for the last few days Microsoft's final witnesses have been taking the stand. One, Compaq VP Tim Yeaton was blocked by Microsoft attorneys from answering questions about Microsoft intimidation of Compaq, among other things. Yeaton, who'd earlier revealed that he'd been asked to testify for Microsoft in response to a request from Paul Maritz, was nevertheless acting in a personal capacity, and therefore was not in a position to say anything that could be deemed Compaq confidential. Questions in this area resulted in a string of objections, and instructions by Microsoft's attorneys not to answer. But the questions themselves went into the record: Q. Did Microsoft threaten to retaliate against Compaq if Compaq took steps to port specific elements of Windows to Unix? Mr. Frawley: Objection. Mr. Remis: I guess from our point, one, we'd object to the question for a variety of reasons, including no foundation and the form. But, in addition, to the extent that it calls for an answer that has anything to do with discussions between Compaq and Microsoft and is subject to a confidentiality or nondisclosure, then we instruct the witness not to answer. Q. Did Microsoft offer financial inducements to Compaq to use MainSoft product instead of Bristol's product to port elements of Windows to Unix? Mr. Frawley: Objection. [etc.] Mr. Schiavone: So you're instructing the witness not to answer? Mr. Remis: That's correct. Q. Did Microsoft offer to reduce royalty or payments for use of its products to Compaq if Compaq used MainSoft's product? Mr. Remis: Same objection and same instruction. Q. Mr. Yeaton, did Microsoft encourage Compaq not to do a technical evaluation of Bristol's product last year? Mr. Remis: [etc.] Q. Did Microsoft's representatives contact Compaq about using MainSoft's product shortly after Bristol filed its lawsuit against Microsoft? Mr. Frawley: Objection. [etc.] ® Complete Register Trial coverage


Other stories you might like

  • Warehouse belonging to Chinese payment terminal manufacturer raided by FBI

    PAX Technology devices allegedly infected with malware

    US feds were spotted raiding a warehouse belonging to Chinese payment terminal manufacturer PAX Technology in Jacksonville, Florida, on Tuesday, with speculation abounding that the machines contained preinstalled malware.

    PAX Technology is headquartered in Shenzhen, China, and is one of the largest electronic payment providers in the world. It operates around 60 million point-of-sale (PoS) payment terminals in more than 120 countries.

    Local Jacksonville news anchor Courtney Cole tweeted photos of the scene.

    Continue reading
  • Everything you wanted to know about modern network congestion control but were perhaps too afraid to ask

    In which a little unfairness can be quite beneficial

    Systems Approach It’s hard not to be amazed by the amount of active research on congestion control over the past 30-plus years. From theory to practice, and with more than its fair share of flame wars, the question of how to manage congestion in the network is a technical challenge that resists an optimal solution while offering countless options for incremental improvement.

    This seems like a good time to take stock of where we are, and ask ourselves what might happen next.

    Congestion control is fundamentally an issue of resource allocation — trying to meet the competing demands that applications have for resources (in a network, these are primarily link bandwidth and router buffers), which ultimately reduces to deciding when to say no and to whom. The best framing of the problem I know traces back to a paper [PDF] by Frank Kelly in 1997, when he characterized congestion control as “a distributed algorithm to share network resources among competing sources, where the goal is to choose source rate so as to maximize aggregate source utility subject to capacity constraints.”

    Continue reading
  • How business makes streaming faster and cheaper with CDN and HESP support

    Ensure a high video streaming transmission rate

    Paid Post Here is everything about how the HESP integration helps CDN and the streaming platform by G-Core Labs ensure a high video streaming transmission rate for e-sports and gaming, efficient scalability for e-learning and telemedicine and high quality and minimum latencies for online streams, media and TV broadcasters.

    HESP (High Efficiency Stream Protocol) is a brand new adaptive video streaming protocol. It allows delivery of content with latencies of up to 2 seconds without compromising video quality and broadcasting stability. Unlike comparable solutions, this protocol requires less bandwidth for streaming, which allows businesses to save a lot of money on delivery of content to a large audience.

    Since HESP is based on HTTP, it is suitable for video transmission over CDNs. G-Core Labs was among the world’s first companies to have embedded this protocol in its CDN. With 120 points of presence across 5 continents and over 6,000 peer-to-peer partners, this allows a service provider to deliver videos to millions of viewers, to any devices, anywhere in the world without compromising even 8K video quality. And all this comes at a minimum streaming cost.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021