法奶日報www.lulijen.com【已刊文章，請點閱版首左側目錄】

李開復博士英文自傳全書（連載【103】）

(圖片請看原書)

My lawyer Ragesh handed Ballmer a presentation, which was based on my article, “Making it in China,” and used for my speeches at various business schools in the US. We intended to show that this presentation was all public information. But to our surprise, Ballmer said this document was confidential to Microsoft.  He then dissected the presentation and stated how each section could be based on Microsoft’s data.  He made a special point that work built on data Microsoft purchased should be owned by Microsoft. 

My lawyer asked, “How do you decide if something is confidential?”

Ballmer said, “Confidential documents are clearly marked ‘Microsoft Confidential.’ If it’s not marked, it needs to be considered confidential unless approved otherwise.” 

“Who is authorized to approve?” asked my lawyer.

Ballmer said just him and the senior VPs. This was a rule previously unheard of, and I knew for sure a vice president was authorized to approve, but he seemed to be making up rules that removed my discretion.

Why did he go through such lengths to go on record to talk about Microsoft-owned data?  And marking “Microsoft Confidential”?  And saying I had no discretion?  Could it be that their lawyers prepared something to trap me later?

After listening to the three depositions, my lawyer expressed concerns during recess.

“Obviously they’ve been trained by lawyers,” he said. “The lawyers prepared seamless answers for them so they wouldn’t leak anything that might be in your favor.”

“What about their exaggerated and false statements?” I asked. “Can we use those to question their integrity?”

“We will,” my lawyer said. “But this case is about your integrity rather than theirs.”

I was losing hope. I recalled the last few words of the pledge of allegiance, “with liberty and justice for all.” Where was my justice?

I didn’t expect the situation to soon turn around with MSN Search vice president Christopher Payne’s deposition.

In the Q&A with our lawyer, Payne essentially said, “Microsoft didn’t really do search when Kai-Fu Lee was with MSN. Microsoft search was my idea after I joined MSN in 2002. We never invited him to any of our department meetings or our meetings with Gates. We didn’t put his name in our letter of appreciation during the product launch because we didn’t need to thank him for anything. I’m in charge of Microsoft search and Lee had nothing to do with it.”

When he stated the facts with a sense of pride, the Microsoft lawyer sitting beside him suddenly turned pale.

Neither my lawyers nor I could believe he was actually telling the truth. His own desire for credit clouded the instructions he had been given – to incriminate Kai-Fu Lee as a search expert and manager. This was the most favorable evidence to us!

歡迎各界惠賜各類創作稿件，email：lulijen46@gmail.com

並歡迎轉載，但務請註明出處    --編者--

【法奶日報www.lulijen.com2017.6.6. 出刊，第9-1892號】