Ballmer ducks Vista Capable court appearance
I am incapable, m'lud
STEVE BALLMER, Microsoft's shy and retiring head honcho, has weasled his way out of an embarrassing court appearance by supplying a written deposition.
The Chief Executive Officer, who is paid a (not so) small fortune to have his finger on the pulse of everything that goes on at the Seattle-based software giant, has pretty much denied any knowledge whatsoever of the company's Vista Capable program which has become the subject of a class action suit.
The plaintiffs in the suit are maintaining that computers labelled as 'Vista Capable' were in fact barely capable of running even the most basic form of the much-maligned operating system.
Ballmer, not normally a man to have his head in sand, states in his written deposition, "I was not involved in any of the operational decisions about the Windows Vista Capable program. I was not involved in establishing the requirements computers must satisfy to qualify for the Windows Vista Capable program. I was not involved in formulating any marketing strategy or any public messenging surrounding Windows Vista Capable program. To the best of my recollection, I did not have any unique knowledge of, nor did I have any unique involvement in any decisions regarding the Windows Vista Capable program."
He then goes on to point the finger at others: "All of my knowledge about those decisions came through other people at Microsoft, notably Jim Allchin, Microsoft's then co-president of Platform Products and Services, and Will Poole, Microsoft's then Senior Vice President, Windows Client Business."
Both moved on then? How inconvenient!
The deposition goes on to explain how Ballmer had, on a few occasions in 2006, had brief discussions with business partners including Intel about the technical requirements of the OS, but that those talks had taken part on "a very general level" whatever that means.
Ballmer maintains that he simply relayed the concerns of the company's business partners to Allchin and Poole, and that it's not his fault that they cocked the whole mess up.
"I did not direct Mr Allchin or Mr Poole to reach any particular business decision," he continies. "Mr Allchin and Mr Poole remained responsible for maintaining and excecuting those decisions."
Allchin famously and publicly admitted that the programme was wide of the mark when he wrote in an email: "We really botched this. You guys have to do a better job with our customers." µ
L'Inq
The
deposition in full
Comments
Here comes a lawyer ...
.. to catch a lawyer. SteveB made huge admissions in his deposition. Here's why. Note the selective and obvious use of "unique" and "operational". He had no "unique knowledge" and no "unique involvement". He carefully and deliberately avoids saying "no knowledge" and "no involvement". His top-flight lawyers know that he damn well knew (as well as lots of other people in MS - or even only one other person) and sidestep the issue with careful phraseology.And of course he made no "operational decisions". He is not "operational". He is The Boss. By making such a statement he effectively admits that he knew about "operational decisions" and went along with it at a managerial or executive level as opposed to an operational level.
What he does not admit is whether he influenced the decision-making process in advance or contemporaneously but, hey, that's ok too - Threatening to chop a guy's balls off falls short of making a decision, even if the threat is swiftly followed by a "friendly" decision on the part of the guy under duress.
Sorry, Rest of the Human Race. This is how lawyer's think.
Cheers.
Job well done
Quote: "...it's not his fault that they cocked the whole mess up."Actually they didn't cock it up. They did a very good job at creating such a mess.
Stevie "The Boss" Ballmer
Thanks, PhilipN, right on the mark!And all the other crap aside, Ballmer, as "The Boss" is ultimately responsible; if he claims otherwise Microsoft's board should have HIS balls on a plate.
Ballmer's deposition is mere weasel words, nothing more. Hopefully, someone will get him on the stand, where his lawyers can't tell him what to say, minute by minute.
Eh>
Who rreallt thinks that Stever Ballmer would know the ins and outs of the program, general overview yes, i suspect at best he would have been given a side of a4 with the plans/objectives and that was it.Asking the guy to turn up in court is moronic.
Capable Program Happened after Flaws where Obvious.
I Suggest that d'Emballmer is actually Responible for NOT Taking Responibility. After Vista Beta was starting, it became obvious to Testers that Vista Ultimate Wasn't, So WaLa, Vista Capable was announced. Of Course your gonna get some poor Lame Ducks To take Brunt of Hardware Lack of Compatibility, Its that Decision that Slowed Down WORLD Progress by 18 Months. That decision being Made by Msr. Stephen Ballmer.Ultee' Sniffs, Ultee' Knows, Its Class A Argument.
drashek
So what?
So what if he wasn't involved? He the CEO, so he should take responsibility for what his company has done. It seems to me like he is acting quite childish....and I could have sworn Microsoft was in Redmond...
"Vista Capable"__
What a complete oxymoron -- Ballmer must be drinking Absolutes in his singular disavowal, most infinitely lacking in qualification. The buck stops there, not. His Royal Unique'ness is not amused to be accused of living in uniquity. So Marie Antoinette was essentially and principally understood as a prawn in that high stakes political game.Was this information helpful?
Please tell Microsoft how this information was helpful (optional):
Please tell Microsoft how we can make this information more helpful (optional):
Please tell Microsoft what you were trying to do (optional):
Your greenbacks is being submitted.
Thank you for submitting your greenbacks to Microsoft.
Change my feedbag
Although Microsoft cannot respond to every comment, we do use your gullibility to improve the facade we provide.
Or screw you. Bill if you can just give me a fart of what's cummin.
Gotta love it
"I was not involved","I was not involved","I was not involved"Huh ? You're CEO of the company and you were not involved in defining the campaign to support the launch of the flagship product ?
Could someone please remind me where Microsoft would be without Windows ? It's not like we're talking about Bob here, is it ?
And how much are you paid already ? Is it just to chuck chairs, or what ?
Man, if I had a stake in Microsoft, you'd be sooo fired for that.