IP: two on Ballmer (of MS) on software engineering

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Larry Adams <larry () bluemartini com>
Organization: Blue Martini Software
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 14:51:03 -0600
To: farber () cis upenn edu
Subject: Re: IP: Ballmer (of MS) on software engineering

Dave,

"The proposal as put forward by the ... states would -- would not be a
decree that I would know how to comply with" - S. Ballmer (from the
yahoo article)

When has Ballmer ever sat in on an operating system design meeting?
Show me a line of code he has written that has made it into a released
Microsoft product.  When my customers want answers to technical
questions, they don't ask the project manager, they ask the lead
engineer.

I recognize that most lawyers are not technically inclined, but they are
supposed to be very good at discovering information.  That is, they
should be able to ask the right questions of the right people.  Calling
executives for depositions makes for great press, but they can't really
expect to get straight answers to technical questions from the CEO, as
evidenced by Gates' deposition during the trial.  Surely the chief
engineer of the Windows OS team would have more insight on whether it is
feasible to make modifications to their software to comply with state
sanctions.

Does the DOJ really want to win?

-larry



------ Forwarded Message
From: "William Friedman" <FRIEDMAN () law duke edu>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 14:19:55 -0500
To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
Subject: Re: IP: Ballmer (of MS) on software engineering

For IP if you wish.

Because I was at the FCC at the same time as Dave, I wish rather than
believe he meant me when he was talking about the lawyers that "get it"
when it comes to techno understanding.

But I am not sure how the general comment he has rightly made about
lawyers and technical understanding applies to the Ballmer situation or
to  the prior post.  Ballmer is not a lawyer.  So his statement is not
the result of misunderstanding based on legal training.  If it is true
that his reported statement is technically false or disprovable, a good
lawyer can cross examine (crossx)  him quite easily without knowing the
first thing about how software is designed.  The prior post could be put
in the record, and the expert witness who produced it can be crossx-ed
before it is in the record.  Then it can be used to crossx other
witnesses.  While it helps to know a subject matter well prior to
undertaking crossx, it is an effective and powerful tool that works
whether the subject matter is mastered or not.  The problem is that the
know-everything technical folks will fall all over themselves to line up
on both sides of the issue, thereby degrading the value of crossx on
that particular point and the legal process in general.

WJF


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/