8 ms·
Its the same way "embrace, extend, and extinguish" was coined. "Embrace and extend", without extinguish/exterminate, was used in Microsoft corp docs that were h
by DiabloD3 26d ago
Its the same way "embrace, extend, and extinguish" was coined. "Embrace and extend", without extinguish/exterminate, was used in Microsoft corp docs that were handed to the DOJ during the famous antitrust case, but it was the DOJ that turned it into EEE after realizing what "embrace and extend" actually meant in the broader context of Microsoft's machinations.
The DOJ's clever hook won them the case.
- hn_throwaway_99 26d ago> The DOJ's clever hook won them the case. Or, rather, the fact that Microsoft was blatantly illegally abusing their monopoly position to kill competitors.
- digitaltrees 26d agoBlatant complex behavior, no matter how illegal, won’t convince a judge or jury without clear rhetoric. So catch phrases are essential elements to conveying the truth about the behavior
- ambicapter 26d ago[citation needed]
- Loughla 26d agoIt's hard to prove a negative, you know.
- EA-3167 26d agoSeems like a good argument for tempering claims around negatives then, if people want to be taken seriously.
- digitaltrees 25d agoSeems like you’re just demanding proof for something that’s obvious on its face. Only someone that has never taken a writing, communication, debate or similar class would demand evidence for the proposition that effective communication to a general audience has to target a 3rd or 4th grade reading level and catch phrases with alliteration that fits within human short term memory is essential to ensure comprehension. There is the rule of three https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing) and rule of seven. https://bostoninstituteofanalytics.org/blog/the-rule-of-seven-in-marketing-why-customers-need-repeated-exposure/ https://bostoninstituteofanalytics.org/blog/the-rule-of-seve...
- EA-3167 24d agoThere's a difference between understanding rules for effective arguments and writing, and believing that those rules are shortcuts to swaying a jury without needing a case. It's certainly PART of communication, but this isn't a Hollywood script so glib speech alone isn't going to get you very far in this sort of case. I'd also caution you to remember that for thousands of years people argued from "What was obvious" and they were inevitably wrong, so I'll stick to the scientific method over "You must not know how to write" as an argument.
- digitaltrees 23d agoBut that’s not what I argued. Someone else argued that there was so no need to simply complex concepts for a jury without explaining why that would be an exception to all the established best practices of writing and communication. Then everyone is asking me to justify and offer citations. The burden isn’t on me. It’s generally established that effective communication is that which is comprehensible. Saying “just say the unvarnished complexity” is an exception that should require explanation
- EA-3167 23d agoYou have to understand that the GP context here is this bottom line: "The DOJ's clever hook won them the case." and your contribution: "Blatant complex behavior, no matter how illegal, won’t convince a judge or jury without clear rhetoric." We have examples of both being wrong, because judges and juries are not all the same and experts exist. There's also a way to take time to explain complex ideas in simpler terms, that's what most of a case like this ends up being. The "Clear rhetoric" part of these things is only a relatively brief portion delivered during opening and closing, the rest involves presenting and interrogating evidence. As the also says his is a case in which the jury only plays an advisory role and the judge will make a final ruling. The judge in this case is Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers who has extensive experience in complex cases involving big tech, so she's going to be far less impressed with clever wording than solid legal work.
- digitaltrees 25d agoHow about the whole discipline of rhetoric that has thousands of years of history. Or the fact that law schools specifically teach jury communication strategies that focus on the psychology of persuasion.
- ambicapter 24d agoThis is just you repeating "I don't need to prove anything, it's obvious" over and over again.
- digitaltrees 23d agoSo I need to give a citation that the US uses dollars as its legal currency, cars generally have 4 wheels but not always, gravity causes things to fall on earth?
- hliyan 26d agoNot unlike "delay, deny, defend".
- treetalker 26d agoWould explain Zuck’s late interest in martial arts …
- Obscurity4340 25d agoVery much his schtoyle
- brhn 26d agoThis is false. They explicitly used extinguish in their internal doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
- deleted 25d ago[deleted]
- nneonneo 25d agoDid they actually use this phrase in their internal comms? The one reference I can find - https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2006/06/01/V-A.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2006/... - says that Steven McGeady (then VP of Intel) testified that Paul Maritz (then an exec at Microsoft) told Intel that Microsoft's strategy was to "embrace, extend, extinguish". However, I can't see that corroborated by any actual internal communications.
- koolala 25d agoThat statement was itself internal communication.