Bill Gates Microsoft Antitrust deposition. The more you know. Unbelievable.
Tap link to view video. https://youtu.be/gRelVFm7iJE
Wow, if you want to get to the bottom of something with this sack of shit, good luck.
He apparently likes to argue the definition of every word of a sentence. Give a listen and see if you think he has any trustworthiness.
This is an edited highlights condensation.
I will provide the entire archived deposition
https://archive.org/details/Bill_Gate...
Wow, if you want to get to the bottom of something with this sack of shit, good luck.
He apparently likes to argue the definition of every word of a sentence. Give a listen and see if you think he has any trustworthiness.
This is an edited highlights condensation.
I will provide the entire archived deposition
https://archive.org/details/Bill_Gate...
SOURCE URL: https://youtu.be/gRelVFm7iJE
His type is informally referred to in psychiatric circles as a Dark Triad: Psychopath+Narcissist+Machiavellian
That's as bad as it gets.
He lacks the normal human emotions of empathy, sympathy and love.
In my books, that ain't human.
It is THEY that are the Great Unwashed and "We" are the Elite on the Street!
Peace to you and your recovery.
Right after the lawsuit, Bill stopped running Micrisoft, and became a do-gooder and world-saver.
Had the DOJ not filed their antitrust suit, Bill might still be running his schlocky software company, and we could have been spared Bill's Covid lockdowns!
All that he has written is a fantastic history lesson of todays Cabal.
Start at ….Not since 1917
https://prussiagate.substack.com/p/ta...
And just like that.......Microsoft wasn’t on the government’s shit list anymore.
Amazing how that happens.
That was a pivotal moment for me. Microsoft was guilty. It was plain as day. They were trying to crush Netscape. Basically dumping product on the market. Standard Oil was “convicted” on less evidence when it was forced to break up.
That was when I got my first glimpse of the corruption. And when I began to realize that there are more than just one set of rules everyone plays by. It was also the beginning of the realization that most everything I was told to believe about JUSTICE in the United States was a complete lie. And that transcends party affiliations. It has only gotten worse as the years wore on. So when people get all patriotic on me with “Save America!” I’m like........Save what exactly? The system that put us where we are in the first place? And expect a different result?
I think that’s often referred to as INSANITY.
Judgement and reward based on who you know (Pull) not what you know.
AS Non-fiction.
Notes on Bill Gates deposition
Part I
"Operating system." He's diverged from the definition, which is still accurate. He's trying to argue that the operating system is much more than just a computer program which controls hardware, but he doesn't give any specifics. He's stalling - probably because he knows the answer incriminates him.
Definition of "application." Again, he ultimately admits that it is "vague but accurate." What a load of tripe. An application is a tool, not a specific tool.
"web browser" - again, he's splitting hairs because he's restating the same thing as in the original description while trying to obfuscate and claim they are different. It's dishonest.
"internet explorer" again, he's trying to claim that it is both an application AND part of the operating system.
"Was internet explorer shipped as a standalone product?" Gates: "No." Uh, the original Windows 95 did not come with Internet Explorer. It didn't come with ANY web browsing functionality. That was developed by Netscape and showcased in their Netscape Navigator program. It wasn't until Windows 95b (circa 1997) that Internet Explorer could be had for Windows 95 and was a pre-installed program. This is just an outright LIE. It also avoids the issue that earlier versions of Netscape Navigator were available for Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, and Windows 3.11 for Workgroups - all versions I personally used. He also avoids the fact that you could UNINSTALL Internet Explorer from Windows 95 - which most sane people did because it was so buggy.
"Read the complete entry." This is just stalling. There's nothing in the extended definition which is germane and certainly nothing to throw a hissy-fit over.
"You can't describe Internet Explorer according to its initial release because we've updated it." Non sequitur. Irrelevant. Internet Explorer is a product. That it's initial release doesn't have the same code as subsequent releases is indicated in the version number and is self-explanatory.
"It's not accurate to say that Internet Explorer is defined at a certain point in time." No one is making that argument except Gates. Again, its a red herring and someone with actual software knowledge (not the lawyer) could have easily pointed that out. Or the lawyer could have just gone back to the definition of an "application" as a tool for getting something done - regardless the actual bytes flowing through the memory registers. Gates is obfuscating here just to be obstreperous.
"It's an email - not a memorandum." Rolling eyes. It's BOTH. Email is method. Memo is purpose.
"Is a killer application one which drives sales of other products like operating systems?" Gates: "No." This is an intentional lie, as Gates had frequently described web browsers and office applications as just that. Nobody buys an operating system for the operating system. They buy it so they can run applications.
"So you're not going to read to me the second meaning?" Here Gates is literally whining because the lawyer is asking him to confirm the definition of a "killer app" as accurate. Here Gates' own self-superiority gets himself in trouble because the second application is even more damning to his case. Then he tries to go back and obfuscate his own use of the term.
"Any other "killer applications?" Gates: "Flight simulator." Maybe, but not even close to being in the same vein functionality-wise as a web browser and certainly not one which drove competitors out of the market. Then he tries to obfuscate by talking about different areas of life affected by computers. It's all irrelevant to the topic: web browsers. Why? Because in the other fields there were legitimate competitors who weren't being pushed out because of Microsoft's bundling practices. All of those other applications were sold separately.
"What operating systems do you have on the market?" Gates: CE, DOS, Windows 95, Windows 98, NT 3.0, NT 4.0... "Are they all being marketed?" Gates: "Yes." Poor question. He should then followed up with "what segments?" because CE was only available (and was only ever available) for embedded systems use (for which it was a complete disaster - first hand experience). DOS you couldn't get from Microsoft directly. Only OEM PC makers could even get 95 after 98 was released. If you really want to call NT 3.0 a market product I guess you could, but it wasn't stable or in demand. 4.0 was only marginally better. But the more relevant question is in which of these products was Internet Explorer shipped by default and uninstallable. Answer: Windows 98. (For defense contractor certifications, you could uninstall IE from both NT versions even if it shipped with it.)
"Is there anyone at Microsoft responsible for determining PC market share?" Gates "No." Uh, BS. Even the lawyer points out that Microsoft's own documents indicate that they did indeed measure market share information. Gates tries to claim he didn't know, but this is one of his direct reports at the VP level.
"What was your understanding of Microsoft's market share in operating systems in 1996?" Gates: "I wouldn't know." BS again.
"What other operating system competitors are there?" Gates: "A great many." "Can you identify them?" [Hesitates]
"Santa Cruz" - the popular SCO Unix operating system, this wasn't for consumers but for industrial programmers.
"Red Bricks" - no idea unless he is referring to what became Red Hat - a flavor of Linux.
"Caldera" - a UNIX manufacturer (and later Linux). Again, not really a competitor in the PC market.
"IBM in many different products" - While it is true that IBM was working on a competitor to Windows called OS/2 and later OS/2 Warp, these both flopped mightily in the workplace. IBM also had its own AS/2 systems but these were mainframes and weren't running on the x86 architecture. The "many others" here is vague and unsubstantiated. This may be a cheap shot at the fact that IBM was once Microsoft's biggest partner.
"Sun Microsystems" - now this one was a major player in UNIX, but again, not the x86 architecture - especially not at that time. Like other UNIX manufacturers, they used different chipsets - not the x86.
"Microware" - Not an x86 platform. It was a Motorola 8-bit design - hardly a competitor as it was mostly used in embedded systems.
"Wind River" - again, primarily an OS for embedded systems. Not a competitor for x86 personal computers.
One Gates failed to mention was Hewlett Packard with their HPUX UNIX product, but that - again - was for industrial use and didn't run on the x86 platform. Gates also refused to mention Windows' biggest competitor: Novell, who directly DID target the x86 architecture not only for servers but for PC's in the corporate world.
All in all, Gates is just flummoxing the lawyer here. The only real x86 competitor in the entire list is IBM OS/2.
[discussion about the use of Windows computers to host an Internet Service Provider (MCI). Gates: "A windows box certainly isn't a Windows PC..." Lawyer: "So your saying that when he uses 'Windows Box' here he's referring to a piece of cardboard." Gates then tries to obfuscate again and say that he's "probably referring to the bits." Utter rubbish.
"Do you see where he wrote that Microsoft has one unique and valuable asset." Gates "Well, I see where he wrote that." Eye roll. Then he diverges into a hypothetical.
Here (the 28:50 mark) the lawyer cautions Gates that he finds his answers to be "rambling" and "non-responsive."
Gates then immediately refuses to answer the question and asks the court reporter to read back "the original question." The lawyer then asks the question a THIRD time. Gates then goes on a long diatribe that has nothing to do with the question.
After deflecting yet again, the lawyer comes back and asks Gates a FOURTH time if the OS represents a "unique and valuable asset to Microsoft." Gates diverts again, asking what is meant by "distribution." He then deflects with another hypothetical.
"What is the primary distribution channel for Microsoft to sell Internet Explorer." Gates: The Internet. !!!! UH.... You couldn't download anything off the internet back then of any size. (2400 Baud modems!) Everything was on 3.5" floppy disks. Then he glosses over OEM sales and instead tries to make it seem as if niche distribution methods like conferences and such. He's deflecting. 99%+ of their distribution channel for IE was pre-installed as part of OEM builds. And no, it WASN'T included in Office, though in later versions it began leveraging IE-based code.
Here now Gates denies knowledge of other employees at Microsoft, especially those conducting market research. He goes on to deny knowing several other individuals even though he later had meetings with them. Note that he pays particular attention to the spelling of a name in order to deny knowledge. An easy explanation is that it was a moniker or nickname and Gates was choosing to "remember" the individual only by their full name. It's open deception. He also denies remembering anything about the meeting.
[lawyer then reads a particularly damning analysis where a MS executive recommends bundling IE with "Memphis" - Windows 98. That was the first version where IE came with the OS. Windows 98 SE (Second Edition) integrated the OS into the operating system.
Gates then goes on to obfuscate again and diverts into "the kinds of users surveyed" to get the information, even though the information was coming from the OEM vendors. He then waves his hands around that he can't offer any opinion on the memo because he doesn't understand the users. It's complete nonsense. He then goes on to say that while he had seen marketing analyses, he couldn't recall a name of who put them together - a convenient lie.
"Was Netscape the first company to put together a marketable web browser." Gates diverged into Mosaic, which was never marketed to the public. Its "popularity" is a highly subjective matter as it never appeared as boxed software in stores. Mosaic was later re-written into the Mozilla engine which is the basis for all modern web browsers including IE, Edge, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, etc.
"Are you finished reviewing the email" Gates: "I looked at it." [cough] Can't even get a straight answer on a simple question.
Again, Gates deflects about knowing about a particular employee both that he didn't think he was working for the company (he was) and tried to place another red herring by saying that he wasn't with the OS division, but rather the online service known as MSN.
"Do you know what he is referring to when he mentions your (Gates') problem statement?" Gates: "No." This may be a flaw in the lawyer's question, which should have been "What was the problem statement he was referring to here? The problem statement YOU gave him..."
"Do you know what he meant by 'API hooks'..." Gates "No. I can guess if you want." BS 200%. Gates and every other programmer know exactly what an API hook is. It is a way for other programs to leverage the functionality of another program without having to write it yourself (and re-invent the wheel).
Gates goes on to further deny that he knows what the other person "meant" saying all he could do was guess. Then the lawyer pins him down on a couple of acronyms confirming that he did, indeed, understand exactly what they were.
"Do you know if anyone else at Microsoft was concerned about [Netscape]?" Gates "It's hard for me to recall other peoples' concerns."
"Was [so-and-so] one of your top executives?" Gates: "He was an executive. I'm not sure what you mean by 'top' executive."
"Does this email bring to your recollection top executive discussions about Netscape?" Gates: "I think that's a mischaracterization." He then goes on a diatribe about a cancelled project and then admits that - even though he is a direct recipient of the email and that he was given time in the deposition to review it - that he only "glanced" at one paragraph.
--------------------------------
All I can say is that for these types of depositions I wish you could sit these kinds of people in an electric-feedback chair which shocks them when they obfuscate. This deposition was absolutely maddening and I can't wait until Gates has to face someone (in the afterlife) who will see right through him and to whom Gates won't be able to lie.
September 2, 2022 Bill Gates, Serum Institute get Bombay High Court notice over alleged vaccine death
Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the Serum Institute of India were issued notices by the Bombay High Court on Friday after a petition in the court alleged that a woman died from the "side effects of Covishield vaccine".
The Bombay High Court on Friday issued notices and sought responses from the Serum Institute of India (SII) and Microsoft founder Bill Gates in a plea filed by Dilip Lunawat who alleged that his daughter died due to the side effects of Covishield. The petitioner demanded Rs 1000 crores as compensation for his loss
With the revelation of such abuses, the shortcomings of the current ac- countability regime for NGOs must be addressed in two critical areas: monitoring projects and monitoring potential influences and exploitation between donors and NGOs. Through the review of recent Gates-funded healthcare campaigns in Africa and the failures of the current accountability regime to prevent and resolve human rights abuses com- mitted during these trials. The need to strengthen the accountability regime for NGOs through a more active role by the local governments and through community outreach and de- velopment.
However, when NGOs make it their mission to change the world and save lives, do we, as citizens of the international community, really know who benefits most from these changes? For better or worse, when the call to action is to “save lives”, a second thought is never given. Any goal to “save lives” is generally deemed important and honorable, leav- ing a long list of rarely answered questions: how will those lives be saved and from what, to what end, after that life is saved will they have a better quality of life or face the same fate under a different disguise, do these lives know they are in danger and need to be saved, do they want to be saved, and what does the savior receive in return.
Fact checked
September 13, 2022
Good luck with his testimony