Microsoft’s, Ahem, Peculiar E-Mail Retention Policies

Can anyone be surprised that Microsoft implemented a email retension policy? In the goverment’s monopoly case, Microsoft got burned by their own internal emails. Back when that happened, I remember thinking to myself… this going to cause corporations to make sure they don’t archive their email. Microsoft clearly did it, I wonder how many other companies have similar policies? For a corporation, it’s simple… why risk some future lawsuit where internal emails are going to be turned over and analyzed. Eliminate the risk… problem solved.

Whether destroying all email after 30 days is ethical or not, that’s up for debate. However, I dont think there are any laws that would suggest that you’re not allowed to delete your email… so until there’s some law that says that corporations must archive email for a specific period of time, I suspect this will be common practice.

BTW, this shouldn’t be a big deal for Burst. I’m sure they would love to find damaging information in internal emails, but they should be able to prove that Microsoft ripped of their protocols if that’s what they actually did. I haven’t seen any evidence one way or another.

Chris, you misunderstood the point of the articles. Microsoft *was* ordered to retain email relevant to ongoing litigation. According to the articles cited, Microsoft then chose very convenient criteria for what “relevant” meant, only retaining email peripherally related to the issues under litigation while discarding email generated by the principals.

“I dont think there are any laws that would suggest that you’re not allowed to delete your email”

They’re covered by the same laws that regulate paper documents. Remember Enron? And Arthur Andersen? MS may finally be getting close to a real indictment.

Dan, your hypocrisy knows no limits! Why have you pandered to convicted felon Frank Quattrone in one breath, then come down vindictively on Microsoft in the next breath for practices that do not even *approach* Quattrone’s conduct?

Wow. Quattrone must have taken you seriously and returned your phone calls, as Microsoft so clearly will not.

Can anyone be surprised that Microsoft implemented a email retension policy? In the goverment’s monopoly case, Microsoft got burned by their own internal emails. Back when that happened, I remember thinking to myself… this going to cause corporations to make sure they don’t archive their email. Microsoft clearly did it, I wonder how many other companies have similar policies? For a corporation, it’s simple… why risk some future lawsuit where internal emails are going to be turned over and analyzed. Eliminate the risk… problem solved.

Whether destroying all email after 30 days is ethical or not, that’s up for debate. However, I dont think there are any laws that would suggest that you’re not allowed to delete your email… so until there’s some law that says that corporations must archive email for a specific period of time, I suspect this will be common practice.

BTW, this shouldn’t be a big deal for Burst. I’m sure they would love to find damaging information in internal emails, but they should be able to prove that Microsoft ripped of their protocols if that’s what they actually did. I haven’t seen any evidence one way or another.

Bill Gates wanted Dead or Alive ?

( In Victoria Au anyway if this goes ahead. )

http:// www.theage. com.au/articles /2004/10/09/1097261856723.html

The destruction of documents that could be damaging or embarrassing if revealed in court will be outlawed by the State Government.

Attorney-General Rob Hulls has promised to introduce legislation to prevent the practice, which was exposed when lung cancer victim Rolah McCabe sued British American Tobacco’s Australian subsidiary (BATAS) in 2002.

Victorian Supreme Court judge Geoffrey Eames in April 2002 struck out BATAS’s defence in the McCabe case after finding she could not have a fair trial because documents had been destroyed.

ETC…

> Chris, you misunderstood the point of the articles.
> Microsoft *was* ordered to retain email relevant to
> ongoing litigation.

I don’t think I misunderstood the point. Let’s say Microsoft has a 30 day retention policy to delete any email that is not related to ongoing litigation. Well, Microsoft is negotiating with Burst… and then later on Burst sues. From that point, Microsoft would only theoretically be able to provide email from the previous 30 days and any email relating to Burst from that point on yes? But if the negotiations happened a year ago, well… that’s too late for Burst.

The point is, with a 30 day retention policy, a company assures that it is deleting its email on a regular basis, so future lawsuits will not be able to druge through the archives.

> They’re covered by the same laws that regulate
> paper documents.

Really? Well then I may be in violation of that law. I just deleted some email this morning. What is the law, how long am I supposed to save my email before I delete it?

-Chris

Chris, the example cited in the Register article was with Real Networks in 1997, not Burst. Burst may be more interested in demonstrating a pattern of intentionally withholding evidence in litigation. From personal experience I can tell you that a 30-day deletion policy would be a nuisance for users of email, so it is quite possible the 30-day deletion policy was applied subjectively. From the Reg article:

In response to a DoJ request in 1997 it (Microsoft) failed to identify Chris Phillips and his boss Eric Engstrom, although Phillips had led negotiations with RealNetworks and the ensuing deal was sometimes referred to internally as “the Chris Phillips deal.” Microsoft did identify the in-house lawyer brought in to draft the contracts, but not Phillips or Engstrom, so both destroyed their emails.

Read this post for more info on Microsoft business practices

http://www.idealog.us/2004/10/follow_up_to_ci.html

Chris,

Microsoft has been under specific document retention orders since 1997.

Additionally, when a company has a monopoly position in an industry, they may not engage in certain anti-competitive conduct which would be allowable for non monopoly-firms. You and I can do things which Standard Oil could not.

Microsoft — which not coincidentally was adjudicated a monopoly (that finding was not overturned) — allegedly violated a prior court order to retain documents. They did so in a way which appears nefarious — at least to my biased viewpoint (I’m on the BoD of BRST). It appears as if the policy was specifically created to destroy emails — not retain them.

There is a lot of public information on the case — you find the full story intriguing:

Legal filings: http://www.burst.com/new/newsevents/legalactivity.htm

Articles:
http://www.burst.com/new/newsevents/articles.htm

“Microsoft’s Media Monopoly” (Salon) http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/10/29/microsoft_media_one/

Thanks for the additional links. I hadn’t realized how old long this case goes back.

Guys, I’m not defending Microsoft here. I’d never wish the Windows operating system on my worst enemy and I fully understand how Microsoft has abused its Monopoly position. And in this case, they may have selectively deleted messages. That really has nothing to do the point I am trying to make which seems to be ignored.

My point is this: The antitrust lawsuit taught Microsoft (and all businesses) a big lesson… do NOT archive your email… it’s an unnecessary risk. We can’t be surprised that companies have a 30 day retension policy… I’m sure most large companies do. Will there ever be legislation that instructs companies how long they must retain their email archives? I guess we’ll find out.

Chris, your concept is not being ignored, that of large (or any) company being wise to delete email after 30 days. It’s just that it is irrelevant to companies involved in litigation: remember the “routine” document destruction on behalf of Enron is what destroyed Arthur Andersen.

As far as the practicality of automatic destruction of email, it comes with a cost. With sales or development cycles of many products spanning months (or even years) it is impractical to whack your history at 30 days. Many internal email threads also can go well beyond 30 days, and it is very useful to be able to review a previously supplied response when a similar question comes up months later. A 30-day deletion policy also requires every employee to invest significant time determining what email content needs to be saved off for future reference.

There’s a reason gmail with its 1000 megabyte retention and lighting-fast search is so attractive, at least to those of us not being sued.

http://www.kvsinc.com/fw/main/Sarbanes_Oxley_and_Email-1810.html

Yep… it looks like SOX chickened out when it comes to specifying what an important document actually is or is not…

Of course the paranoid honest CEO (NST?) will realize that they’d better keep *EVERYONE’S* e-mail archived in the event that they are fed bad information that they sign off on.

And the paranoid dishonest CEO will realize that the SOX places a price on the descrtuction of critical, damning documents (e-mail). The price may or may not be greater than the cost of those documents in the hands of the right lawyer, judge and/or jury.

rock and roll is dead… long live rock!

veffzour ooxuy.

veffzour ooxuy.