...... Forwarded Message ....... From: Barry Ritholtz <ritholtz@optonline.net> To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:44:02 -0500 Subj: Microsoft told to explain e-mail deletion memos Dave, This is an enormous development, given the history of all the litigation against Microsoft. The Judge's order implies a concern over a very conscious decision by the software giant to eliminate incriminating emails -- after receiving a judicial order to archive all of them during the Anti-Trust case. Additionally, being ordered to search the legal department's archive suggests (in my biased opinion) that because of the affirmative actions of the company in ordering email destruction, they are not able to hide behind Attorney-Client privilege. Further, this implies that some Microsoft employees perjured themselves during prior sworn testimony. As previously disclosed, I am on the Board of Burst, and have absolutely no objectivity whatsoever. But read the report yourself, and reach your own conclusion. Barry L. Ritholtz Market Strategist Maxim Group britholtz@maximgrp.com (212) 895-3614 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Microsoft told to explain e-mail deletion memos http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/174343_msftburst21.html Friday, May 21, 2004 By JAMES ROWLEY BLOOMBERG NEWS A federal judge ordered Microsoft Corp. yesterday to search a company computer to help explain why Vice President James Allchin told employees in 2000 to eliminate e-mails. U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore issued the order in an antitrust and patent suit by Burst.com Inc., which has accused Microsoft of stealing its technology for broadcasting sound and video over the Internet at high speeds. Burst.com charges that Microsoft destroyed e-mails that may help the smaller rival win its case. Motz told the company to search a legal department computer for any evidence that Microsoft lawyers advised Allchin and others to adopt a policy of scrapping e-mails. A written policy circulated in 1997 by company computer operators advised employees not to save e-mails for more than 30 days "due to legal issues." "I want to know as much as I can how 'due to legal issues' got in there," Motz told Microsoft lawyer John Treece at a hearing yesterday. "I want to know who talked to Mr. Allchin from the legal department before the e-mail was sent and what was said." Motz didn't accept Microsoft's explanation that the information technology department inserted the words in the company policy statement to make it easier to persuade employees to delete e-mails after 30 days to save computer memory space. "It may be true, but it doesn't have the ring of truth to me," the judge said. Allchin's Jan. 23, 2000, e-mail said: "do not archive your mail. 30 days." Allchin told employees, "This is not something that you get to decide. This is ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as rah@shipwright.com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'