Hacker News Reader

Comment by icelancer | Hacker News Reader

This was written by someone who has no idea what a deposition is about, or is intentionally misrepresenting it. The USG's depositions were PR stunts, filmed on purpose to make Gates look bad.

If you've ever been deposed (and I have), then you know that Gates' approach was close to optimal when dealing with lawyers.

Bill's biggest mistake was having a terrible attitude and bad posture when answering questions. He made it too personal. Otherwise, the strict answers were mostly ideal and are often used as tutorials by attorneys to show those two things:

1) How not to have the posture/tone/etc in your voice when answering questions, but...

2) ...that this is an adversarial discussion and you should seek extreme clarity every single time.

View on HN

I've watched almost 2 hours of the deposition videos now, and I think Gates went far beyond trying to seek extreme clarity. The diversion in part 4 about document stamps is a case in point.

It is an adversarial process, so you must not rely on the usual expectation that colleagues will take the charitable interpretation of your words, but Gates being unable to even possibly understand what his own emails mean, is evasive to the point of raising suspicion.

"Raising suspicion" isn't really a concern in this context. And of course he understands what his own emails mean. Seeking extreme clarity when discussing them is not the same as not understanding them.

We seem to disagree about the seeking extreme clarity issue -- I believe he was intentionally obfuscating, or at least have that suspicion.

As for suspicion, from the article:

---

At one point, Thomas Penfield Jackson, the judge hearing the case, chuckled, too. When Microsoft lawyers argued during a closed-door session that the deposition was turning into a side show and government lawyers should be barred from showing any more segments during the trial, the judge denied the motion, saying: "If anything, I think your problem is with your witness, not with the way in which his testimony is being presented." Jackson continued:

"I think it's evident to every spectator that, for whatever reasons, in many respects Mr. Gates has not been particularly responsive to his deposition interrogation. Everybody at your table has reflected skepticism as the testimony is presented."

---

I'm characterizing the "whatever reasons" as suspicions. I suspect the judges did come to a conclusion on those reasons when it came time to deliver their opinion, and those reasons were damaging.

Any and all depositions are recorded, not just those the USG does. Generally just audio though, in my experience. It is one of the primary methods used to (attempt to) impeach witnesses, along with obviously being used to gather evidence. I handled multi-million dollar mesothelioma cases and we had both audio recording and someone transcribing the testimony of deponents at every deposition. Other firms occasionally filmed theirs. Which is just to say there is nothing unique or nefarious about Gates being recorded.

Edit, to add: maybe there are some novice or low-budget attorneys that don’t record them, but if you don’t record them it basically defeats the entire purpose.

All of mine were audio/transcript only. No video. The biggest problem in Gates' depositions is his body language and posture. Not answers.

"1) How not to have the posture/tone/etc in your voice when answering questions, but...

2) ...that this is an adversarial discussion and you should seek extreme clarity every single time."

Thanks for that.

But if we're being realpolitik about it - shouldn't the 'objective' be to use easy to understand arguments that work well as sound-bytes and zingers, and simpleton analogies so that both the generally uninformed congress, press and population at large will be convinced either directly or by the perpetuation of the 'easy to understand arguments'?

And then to be likeable, which is the #1 thing that will give credibility?

As you say, it's a 'PR stunt - meaning the objective is not 'clarity' - it's more like winning a political TV debate.

If you want to see a more recent example of how to handle a deposition, search the Marcus Limonis depositions on youtube. In my opinion he is an even better textbook case of how to handle a deposition.

Lemonis says "I don't recall" about 10000 times in the span of 3 hours. I understand it's excelent attorney advice, but should Gates have tried the same thing he would have looked even worse in the court of public opinion. His diversions have at least some tact compared to Lemonis' bluntness.

".. filmed on purpose to make Gates look bad."

It is routine to film in-person depositions.

Five under my belt. None with video.

How many times were you on the witness list for trial. Not all deponents are of equal importance or relative value. If Bill Gates was an important potential witness at trial, then there is every reason to tape his deposition.

Could you please expand on WHY posture/tone/etc are important? W

If it's a written deposition, it's not. If it's taped, well, you see articles like this being written about Gates being an extreme dickhead.

Could you explain how it is possible not to understand that posture, tone, etc are important?

No. If someone makes the claim, "X is important", it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to substantiate that claim.

I am aware that posture, tone etc are important factors in communication. My question above asked WHY they are important in this context. Specifically, why the OP thinks they are important given they have been in such a scenario.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com