Woe unto Microsoft. The megalomaniacal software behemoth continues to be plagued by bugs in its dealings with its off-the-books workforce. The company is currently litigating two class action suits brought by temporary and contract workers in United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Judge John Coughenour read Microsoft the riot act in a hearing January 14. No ordinary display of judicial petulance, the hearing was called by the judge on his own initiative, in itself an exceedingly rare act. Judges just don't go around calling hearings that aren't requested by a party in a lawsuit. Generally, the Court is content to let all manner of flagrant violations of the judicial process pass unnoticed absent a formal motion. Even then, it often requires countless billed hours and reams of paper to "rectify" even the most common of objectionable behavior. The limit of Judge Coughenour's sense of outrage is worthy of note, possibly even applause.

It seems the judge got wind of a report in the Seattle Times that Microsoft was forcing its contractors to sign a new contract. The revised contract includes a clause requiring employees to forgo any benefits from lawsuits brought on their behalf or give up employment at Microsoft. It doesn't take a law degree to realize that such a clause foisted on employees in the middle of a lawsuit is, at the least, questionable.

Judge Coughenour, obviously wishing to spare his profession acute embarrassment, was hoping that the contract was revised without legal advice. If he wanted to hear that the clause had been inserted by an overzealous middle manager in the dead of night, he was mightily disappointed. Microsoft's lawyer responded to Coughenour's question of who approved the clause with what the House Republicans might call "legalisms." He tried to assure the judge that the clause only applied to future judgments, not previous rulings.

The judge immediately realized that no middle manager had thought up an idea this convoluted. "I thought maybe I might hear that this was done by somebody without the advice of counsel and, upon reflection of counsel, it was realized that it might be charitably described as ill advised." The judge admitted that he had conceived of many possible excuses Microsoft might raise, but the lameness of their response surprised even him. He adjourned the ten minute hearing with the suggestion that Microsoft's lawyers convince their client to "do the right thing." In a response after the hearing, Microsoft promised to "listen to what [the judge] had to say."

Apart from the natural sense of outrage engendered by requiring employees to surrender any money a "court or government agency" determines they are entitled to, there are certain "legalisms" to contend with. Clearly, defendants like Microsoft are not supposed to strong-arm plaintiffs--like their employees--in the middle of a lawsuit. That is just plain bad form. That alone was probably enough to arouse Coughenour's ire.

It appears that Microsoft just can't accept what the malcontents have been suggesting all along: they are just too arrogant and greedy for their own good. In the end, all their troubles are of their own, shortsighted making. They have the resources and talent to be really cool. Unfortunately, as a corporation, they have no imagination, only cleverness. As the old saying goes "too clever by half."