On Monday, November 2, the government released portions of a videotaped deposition of Microsoft CEO Bill Gates taken for the U.S. v. Microsoft antitrust trial.
Video excerpts are available.
Full text of the deposition portions are below. Editor's Note: There may be errors in the text resulting from the scanning process.
Q. Okay. Let me ask you to look at a document previously marked as Government Exhibit 469. The second item on the first page of this exhibit purports to be an e-mail from you dated June 23, 1996 to Paul Maritz and Brad Silverberg with copies to Messrs. Higgins, Bradford, Waldman and Ludwig on the subject of "Apple meeting." (The document referred to was marked by the court reporter as Government Exhibit 260 for identification and is attached hereto.)
Q. BY MR. BOIES: Did you send this e-mail, Mr. Gates, on or about June 23, 1996?
Q. In the second paragraph you say, "I have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple relationship 1) Maintain our applications share on the platform and 2) See if we can get them to embrace Internet Explorer in some way." Do you see that?
Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to what your two key goals were in connection with Apple in June of 1996?
Q. My time frame in my question, sir, was a time frame beginning in 1996 when you began to view Netscape or the Java runtime threat as a competitive threat to Microsoft.
Q. Is it your testimony that in June of 1996 you did not consider Netscape to be a competitive threat to Microsoft?
Q. So that -- I want to be sure I've got your testimony accurately. It is your testimony that in June of 1996 you considered Netscape to be a competitive threat but you did not consider Java or Java runtime to be a competitive threat; is that your testimony?
Q. Do you agree that in June of 1996 the two key goals that you had in terms of the Apple relationship were, one, maintain your applications share on the platform, and two, see if you could get Apple to embrace Internet Explorer in some way?
Q. Do you have any explanation for why you would have written to Mr. Maritz and Mr. Silverberg on June 23, 1996 that those were your two key goals in the Apple relationship? A They weren't involved in the patent issue at all. So when I write to them, I'm focused on the issues that relate to them. I do mention patents in here, but that certainly was the primary goal at this time and in subsequent times.
Q. Let me be clear. When you write to Mr. Maritz and Mr. Silverberg, you talk about patents, do you not, sir?
Q. Well, did you talk about patents?
Q. Have you read it enough to know whether you talk, about patents?
Q. You do talk about patent cross license, do you not, in this memo? And if you want to look at the last page, five lines from the bottom.
Q. When you write to Mr. Maritz and Mr.. Silverberg, you don't describe that as your top goal, in fact, you don't-even describe it as one of your two or three key goals; correct, sir?
Q. I want to be sure I have your testimony correct. In June of 1996, what was Paul Maritz's title?
Q. He was involved in product development activities. What was his title?
Q. Did he have a title that went with that?
Q. Senior vice-president systems, I see. Did Mr. Silverberg have a position in June of 1996?
Q. Did he have a title?
Q. An officer of some kind.
So you're writing a memo to Paul
Maritz, a senior vice-president, and Brad Silverberg,
an officer of some kind, and you're sending copies to
four other people on the subject of the Apple
meeting, and you say, "I have 2 key goals in
investing in the Apple relationship."
Q. well, sir, at the bottom you say what
you propose in terms of a deal and you talk about
what Apple will get out of the deal and what
Microsoft will get out of the deal; correct, sir?
Q. Well, sir, does it say at the bottom of
the e-mail that you are proposing something with
Apple and you are identifying what Apple would get
under your proposed deal and what Microsoft would get
under your proposed deal?
Q. In fact, the bottom of the e-mail
talking about a proposed Apple-Microsoft deal, you
say, "The deal would look like this," and then you've
got a column "Apple gets" and a column "Microsoft
gets" and a column "Both get"; right, sir?
Q. Now, in this e-mail of a page or a page
and a half in which you are proposing this deal, you
describe your-two key goals as maintaining
Microsoft's applications share on the platform and
Apple to embrace Internet Explorer.
Q. That's wrong, okay.
Q. Is it your testimony here today under
oath that your two key goals in investing in the
Apple relationship, which you mention in the second
paragraph of this e-mail, is different than your two
key goals in the proposed deal that you describe five
Q. Mr. Gates, my question is whether it is
your testimony today here under oath that when you
talk about your two key goals in investing in the
Apple relationship in the second paragraph of this
e-mail, that that is different than what your key
goals were in the deal that you proposed five
Q. Now, you don't tell Mr. Maritz or
Mr. Silverberg that your goals for investing in the
Apple relationship are different than your goals in
the proposed deal, do you, sir?
Q. Well, sir, you say the goals and the
deal are quite different. One of your two key goals
that you talk about in your second paragraph is to
get Apple-to embrace Internet Explorer in some way.
And the very first thing under what Microsoft gets in
your proposed deal is, "Apple endorses Microsoft
Internet Explorer technology." Do you see that, sir?
Q. Now, does that refresh your
recollection that the deal that you were proposing
had some relationship to the two key goals that you
End of segment.
Q. Then you said in your June 23, 1 996
e-mail, "I have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple
relationship," you were talking about yourself
personally; is that correct?
Q. And when in describing the deal five
paragraphs later the very first thing that Microsoft
gets is, "Apple endorses Microsoft Internet Explorer
technology," did that indicate to you that that was
an important-part of what you were getting in terms
of the deal?
Q. Was that an important part of the deal
that you were trying to get, sir?
Q. You never got as far as trying to get
that deal; is that what you're saying?
Q. Well, sir, your e-mail begins, "Last
Tuesday night I went down to address the top Apple
executives;" correct, sir?
Q. Okay. And what you proposed was
"the deal" that you then describe at the bottom of
the first page and the top of the second page;
Q. And that was a deal that you proposed
the Tuesday night before June 23, 1996 to what you
describe as the top Apple executives; correct, sir?
Q. Well, you put them forward and you
describe them as proposing a deal, correct, sir?
Q. All right, sir. Now, you'd said that
the deal that you were talking about never got done.
Did you ever get Apple to endorse Microsoft Internet
Q. I'm actually -- what I'm doing is
asking a question right now, sir. I'm asking whether
in 1996 or otherwise, at any time did you get Apple
to endorse Microsoft Internet Explorer technology?
Q. Sir, I'm asking you, as the chief
executive officer of Microsoft, I'm asking you
whether you believe that you achieved that objective?
Q. Do you know what that part of the deal
Q. Does the deal prohibit them from
shipping Netscape's browser without also shipping
Q. It is your testimony sitting here today under oath that you simply don't know one way or the other whether le is today free to ship Netscape's browser without also shipping Internet Explorer? A That's-right.
Q. When you identify things as key goals,
do you typically tend to follow up and see to what
extent those goals have been achieved?
End of segment.
Q. Did your goals change? For investing in the
Q. You say in this e-mail you have two key
goals for investing in the Apple relationship. one
Q. one of them is to get Apple to embrace
Internet Explorer technology in some way. What I'm
asking you is whether that changed after this person
End of segment.
Q. You say in this e-mail you have
two key goals for investing in the Apple
relationship. One of --
Q. One of them is to get Apple to embrace Internet Explorer technology in some way. What I'm asking you is whether that changed after this person got fired?") The WITNESS: You keep, either intentionally or unintentionally, trying to confuse MY goals for investing in the relationship with the goals we had overall for various dealings with Apple. Certainly the goals I had for investing in the relationship, that I had to start over and rethink because the investment was to spend time with the CEO who had been fired.
Q. Mr. Gates, neither in this e-mail nor in any other document that either of us is aware of do you make that distinction that you're making now, correct? MR. HEINER: Objection.
Q. BY MR. BOIES: Do you understand the
ion I'm asking?
End of segment.
Q. Mr. Gates, this document deals with a
proposed deal that you made to top Apple executives;
Q. What I think I've done is I think I
have mentioned the first goal a number of times.
End of segment.
© Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company