Microsoft’s default font is at the center of a government corruption case

[VCheng]

Even MS Office 2007 Beta version was available in 2006 that included Calibri font, which by itself makes that statement a clear cut lie

What "expert" says "happy to have been created"? What does that even mean?

 

[Path-Finder]

Please read the "expert"'s statement above and tell me whether it can be correct as written?

explain what you take away from what the expert said!

 

[VCheng]

I have and I dont know what are you refering to, font part or the ink dating part?

The "expert" assumes that commercial release of the font is necessary for its use in the document, which is simply not true.

 

[Cent4]

Even MS Office 2007 Beta version was available in 2006 that included Calibri font, which by itself makes that statement a clear cut lie

Businesses don’t use "beta" versions of anything let alone MS Office for law firm which tailor their own add-ons and templates and that takes a lot of time and testing.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Please read the "expert"'s statement above and tell me whether it can be correct as written?

Typo ?
This is the 'summary' of the report
Full report is attached as Annexure K

 

[Cent4]

What "expert" says "happy to have been created"? What does that even mean?

Most probably a typo "have to have been" ?

 

[M. Sarmad]

The "expert" assumes that commercial release of the font is necessary for its use in the document, which is simply not true.

He is an expert .. He knows what he is talking about .. But you obviously don't

Most probably a typo "have to have been" ?

happen

 

[Path-Finder]

Most probably a typo "have to have been" ?

can you help me?

what is he going on about?

 

[VCheng]

He is an expert .. He knows what he is talking about .. But you obviously don't

Sir, he is making an assumption that will simply not stand up in a fair court of law.

 

[wali87]

I think to eliminate any confusion and to keep the process as transparent as possible, the Supreme Court must contact Microsoft and confirm when exactly this Font was made available to the public. This would put an end to this discussion once and for all. On a side note I find this entire situation extremely hilarious and if the font was actually not available before the document was signed then its even more funny.

 

[Cent4]

The "expert" assumes that commercial release of the font is necessary for its use in the document, which is simply not true.

Theoretically I might agree with that but practically it is near impossible.

 

[BRAVO_]

font is just one clue among many others, all points raised by JIT are supported by proper documentation and at this point the corruption of NS is undeniable

 

[VCheng]

Theoretically I might agree with that but practically it is near impossible.

Again Sir, facts are facts, and robust compared to mere assumptions. The law is very precise.

 

[Cent4]

can you help me?

what is he going on about?

I belive that he is saying that the documents are forged and were back dated.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Sir, he is making an assumption that will simply not stand up in a fair court of law.

That's just your personal opinion
Read post#61