|
Microsoft Litigation Resource Page |
|
Friday, January 07 2005 @ 04:06 AM EST
|
It seems like a good idea to collect all the information we can find on litigation involving Microsoft, anticompetitive practices, and antitrust allegations and violations. In part, we were inspired to do this by the Novell v. Microsoft lawsuit, an anti-trust case seeking money damages filed in U.S. Federal District Court on November, 2004 alleging anti-trust violations by Microsoft in regard to the WordPerfect word processing and Quattro Pro spreadsheet programs. But the SenderID fracas and the issues over Microsoft's license terms, as well as recent hints from Microsoft about patent threats to GNU/Linux were also motivating factors. The shredding of legal documents in the Caldera, Inc. v. Microsoft case was another influence. All in all, it seemed the right time for a permanent collection.
Because we are aware of a tension between patents and antitrust law, we hope a database of evidence (and leads to evidence) showing a long history of anti-competitive acts by Microsoft will serve as a valuable resource: (i) for any F/OSS developers who are later charged by Microsoft with patent infringement; (ii) for developers who may wish to sue Microsoft for refusal to license patented technology on reasonable terms; and (iii) by its existence and availability, creating a deterrent that will hopefully cause Microsoft decision-makers to think long and hard before mounting an intellectual property attack against the F/OSS community's code base or trying to establish a patent licensing policy to embrace and extend interoperability standards with proprietary rights to cripple F/OSS competition with Microsoft. We've been working on this for a couple of weeks in-house. Now we feel we have enough of a framework to open it to the public, although we are aware it is not yet complete. If you know of any links we've overlooked, please do provide them in your comments, and we'll incorporate them. Then we'll make this a permanent resource page on Groklaw.
***********************************
Microsoft Litigation
- AOL Time-Warner v. Microsoft
- Apple v. Microsoft
- Avary v. Microsoft
- Pulp Fiction writer sues Microsoft over virtual yoga | The Register
- The complaint accuses Microsoft of breach of implied contract, breach of duty, breach of confidence, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair competition and unjust enrichment. Avary claims Microsoft used his ideas in a Yoga game for the X-box designed with ResponDesign called Yourself!Fitness
- Brazil: Board of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense v. Microsoft Brazil
- Bristol Technology v. Microsoft Corp.
- Caldera v. Microsoft
- The DR-DOS anti-trust lawsuit. Settled out of court shortly before trial. Prior to settling, Microsoft filed nine (9) motions for summary judgment. Caldera's responses exhibited a multitude of Microsoft documents. All Microsoft motions for summary judgment were denied.
- Caldera Antitrust Lawsuit Index, timeline
Annotated timeline of Caldera case. Most links are to Caldera web site, now invalid.
- Document: First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand, in Caldera v. Microsoft, Case No. 2:96 CV 645B.
- GrokLaw - Canopy, Novell, Sun, Caldera, IBM and Microsoft -- The DR-DOS Gang's All Here
- O'Reilly Network: The Caldera v. Microsoft Dossier
Andrew Shulman's summary of the DR-DOS anti-trust case. Note his mention of the secrecy requirements on the settlement agreement and the numerous dead links to court documents formerly available on the Caldera DR-DOS and Microsoft web sites.
- Shulman, Andrew, Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code, Dr. Dobbs J.
- eLeaders v. Microsoft
Anti-trust class action case, 1999, District of Columbia.
- California Cities sue Microsoft
Aug. 29, 2004, charging overpricing because of monopoly control
- Civil Investigative Demands, U.S. Dept. Of Justice
- Corel: DoJ Civil Investigative Demand re Corel-Microsoft deal
- MSN: DoJ Civil Investigative Demand re Microsoft Network
- WebTV: DoJ civil investigative demand
- Class action lawsuits
- Minnesota: Gordon v. Microsoft
- Other states
- Eolas Technologies v. Microsoft
Eolas alleged patent infringement by Microsoft involving technology used in Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser product.
- European Commission anti-trust case
- European Commission v. Microsoft (UPC)
Investigation and settlement requiring Microsoft not to exert "undue influence" on European digital cable television industry.
- European Commission v. Microsoft Europe (Win2k and Media Player)
Suit challenging alleged deliberate interoperability barriers in Windows servers and clients, unlawful tying of Windows with Windows Media Player
- en.pdf (application/pdf Object)
2004 Commission decision including findings and rulings. (PDF, 302 pp.)
- European Commission press release on decision
- Summarizes ruling on anti-trust claims:As regards interoperability, Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant productsAs regards tying, Microsoft is required, within 90 days, to offer to PC manufacturers a version of its Windows client PC operating system without WMP. The un-tying remedy does not mean that consumers will obtain PCs and operating systems without media players. Most consumers purchase a PC from a PC manufacturer which has already put together on their behalf a bundle of an operating system and a media player. As a result of the Commission's remedy, the configuration of such bundles will reflect what consumers want, and not what Microsoft imposes.
- Microsoft grounds for appealing decision of European Commission (PDF, 2 pp.)
- Summarizes Microsoft grounds for seeking reversal of European Commission anti-trust decision regarding Windows 2000 and Windows Media Player.Official Journal of the European Union, 10.7.2004, C179/18 (EN)
- Microsoft PressPass Legal Newsroom Archive
- Microsoft: Legal News on PressPass
- AntiTrust.org paper on differences between US and EU antitrust cases [PDF]
- Federal Trade Commission: Passport
- France: Syn-X Relief v. Microsoft
- Intertrust Technologies v. Microsoft
- Japan Fair Trade Commission
- Lindows v. Microsoft
- MDL-1332 (consolidated anti-trust proceedings against Microsoft)
- Be, Inc. v. Microsoft
- BeOS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Microsoft Corp. and Be Inc. Reach Agreement to Settle Litigation
- (Microsoft press release.) "MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., and REDMOND, Wash. -- Sept. 5, 2003 -- Be Inc. (Nasdaq: BEOS; OTC:BEOSZ.PK) and Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) today announced that the parties have reached a mutually acceptable mediated settlement of an antitrust lawsuit filed by Be Inc. in February 2002, which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore. Be will receive a payment from Microsoft, after attorney�s fees, in the amount of $23,250,000 (U.S.) to end further litigation, and Microsoft admits no wrongdoing. All other terms of the settlement will remain confidential."
- MS Settles Anti-Trust Charges with Be 9/8/03 "Previously, Be claimed that in 1998 its Be Operating System was
to be part of Hitachi's pre-installed "dual boot system." Be says
Microsoft was angry with Hitachi's decision and pressured the company with
higher prices for its Windows OS. Any price increase would pressure Hitachi's
margins on each PC, making it more cost-effective to remove the BeOS."
- Burst v. Microsoft
- Netscape v. Microsoft
- Sun v. Microsoft
- New York, et al v. Microsoft
- Novell v. Microsoft
- OS/2
- RealNetworks v. Microsoft
- SCO
- Sendo v. Microsoft
- South Korea Fair Trade Commission antitrust probe
- Stac Electronics v. Microsoft
- Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (1997)
- Ticketmaster v. Microsoft
- Microsoft v. Timeline
- Typeright Keyboard Corporation v. Microsoft
Patent infringement case
- U.S. v. Microsoft
- Miscellaneous
- FindLaw: U.S. v. Microsoft documents
- U.S. DoJ--U.S. v. Microsoft archive
- OpenLaw: The Microsoft Case - Berkman Center collection, includes transcripts of the trial, exhibits, motions filed, references -- many broken links, including all links to Gates video
- Washington Post's US v. MS Special Report has Gates video excerpts
- Jurist.law.pitt.edu's MS Antitrust page
- Washingtonpost.com: WashTech -- U.S. v. Microsoft Special Report
- A Washington Post resource site for the U.S. v. Microsoft case. Includes links to stories, a timeline, profiles of key players, and an archive of case documents, including some exhibits and Bill Gates' video deposition.
- Washington Post's US v. MS Timeline 1990-2002
- Declaration of Economist, Kenneth J. Arrow
- US v. MS, No. 98-1232(CKK) Tunney Act Comments of Professor Einer Elauge on the Proposed Settlement Agreement Between the US and Microsoft, Jan. 27, 2002 [PDF]
- Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson Order, ruling on MS motions, Sept. 1998, quotes from MS email re Java and Netscape browser strategies and discusses MS's copyright contention re preemption of antitrust laws
- U.S. v. Microsoft (contempt)
- U.S. v. Microsoft (current case)
- U.S. v. Microsoft (Intuit)
- U.S. v. Microsoft (OEM licensing)
- WordPerfect
Legal research
- Governments and Treaty Organizations
- U.S.A.
- World Trade Organization
- Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Topics
- BeOS
BSA
- F/OSS
- F/OSS Licensing
- Gnu/Linux
- FoxPro
- Miscellaneous
- Patent FUD
- Piracy
- Gates, Buffett a bit bearish | CNET News.com
- Bill Gates: "Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software," he said. "Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
- Vaporware
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 04:39 AM EST |
Does anyone have these pages stored somewhere in case they dissapear? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 04:53 AM EST |
Halloween 1 doesnt look good. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:08 AM EST |
In the past, in some (most of the?) patent cases Microsoft was on the tough side
of the stick. It is a bit unfair to call them bloodthirsty litigators. Yep, they
did disgusting things around Lindows, but there are many more unfair cases
against them. Still collecting evidence is a good deterrent, should some crazy
idea hit them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:32 AM EST |
SCO is suing UK companies now.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/39231.html
<a
href="http://www.technewsworld.com/story/39231.html">link</a>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It says in a couple of weeks ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:48 AM EST
- Why the Wookiee? - Authored by: Simon G Best on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 06:07 AM EST
- SCO is suing UK now!!! - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 06:29 AM EST
- SCO is NOT suing UK now!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 06:56 AM EST
- SCO is suing UK now!!! - No - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 07:03 AM EST
- Bring it on! - Authored by: Gothic`Knight on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 07:41 AM EST
- SCO's bluff went sour - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:21 AM EST
- Beema? - Authored by: erehwon on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:15 AM EST
- OT: Beema? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 06:22 PM EST
- SCO is suing UK now!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:50 AM EST
- scox v UK article old - from Jan '04 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 12:14 PM EST
- Just called SCO UK about this - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 05:07 AM EST
- SCO is suing UK now!!! Could be costly! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 06:57 AM EST
|
Authored by: Gothic`Knight on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:59 AM EST |
I have always between quietly confident that despite the apparent setback to
GNU/Linux that the SCOX debacle created that something good was a least possible
from it all. Doesn't mean that anything is certain but as in services to freedom
that Groklaw now provides would not be without the catelyst this round of
litigation has spawned.
This is not the beginning but it well maybe the beginning of the end. This whole
SCOX nonesense is not about some land grab for Linux and the ownership of Unix
it is a symbol of the IP lunacy that is occuring. Like all that are considered
here know, IP law is important and as we all know the GPL is about copyright and
relies on the law to protect the interests of those who seek its shelter. But
the law should protect both the weak and the strong and allow fairness. In
democracy you give up some right to enjoy freedom. You give up the freedom to
kill, steal and pillage in order to gain the freedom to not be killed or
violated.
And theres are times to fight for freedom. SOme see Microsoft as evil, and at
times when I read or hear of their business practices my blood boils a little
sometimes. But I believe in the law and under corporate law they have
obligations, as does SCOX to run a profitable business. But under the freedoms
we have we have both the right and the obligation to ensure the law keeps them
being fair.
That of course is where software patents come in and on the face of it they are
not fair and the law must be changed to this end. And as a symbol of this
Microsoft stands out. The have been and continue to push good laws to breaking
point and exploit bad ones to the maximum. They need to be watched and guess
what thanks to Groklaw and perhaps to lessser degrees another site or two they
are on notice to be carefull.
Again thanks to the greed of the SCOX and/or Canopy group and some of theirs
officers a new Open Source is growing. Open Source Law.
Many eyes make all laws shallow.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Paul Shirley on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 06:41 AM EST |
Lets not forget the asf
patent problem. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 07:39 AM EST |
It seems that there was a lawsuit between Seattle Computer Products and
Microsoft ... I have some links on the internet but nothing seems official to
me.
Perhaps, it would be interesting to have them in the resource page.
Cheers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 07:55 AM EST |
Note that there was a piece in the Groklaw comments awhile back that showed how
Microsoft set up the key development folks at IBM's OS/2 group with funding
(along with Intel, Novell and others that were Microsoft friendly venture
capital types), and with lots of Money, a new company, and 100% full development
rights to MS-OS/2 (that Microsoft had full rights to due to thedeal with IBM to
develop OS/2)...!
With MS-OS2 in hand, Citrix became a company . A Citrix
multi-user/multi-tasking remote access product was soon born, for text based DOS
applications, using OS/2 and the DOS apps then ran on top of it, and soon a
Windows 3.11 GUI ran on top of MS-OS/2 as well!
That MS-OS/2 Citrix and Microsoft blessed product quickly became the defacto
remote access solution for Novell networks. Citrix became a public company.
Soon a very nice Windows NT 3.51 product showed up. Microsoft and Citrix had a
very close co-development relatinoship with MS and Citrix folks working almost
side by side.
Then Citrix developed a Windows NT 4 GUI based product, was done with it and was
going to product out the CDs (or had already shipped the product to produce the
CDs, or something like that) ... anyway, Citrix went into a meeting with
Microsoft to get a license to use the NT 4 product AND then Microsoft said to
Citrix - No! "Sorry Citrix", said Microsoft, "but we Microsoft,
are going to build and sell a NT 4 based multiuser/multi-tasking product
ourselves, or license it, or buy it from someone..." Ouch said Citrix we
have to tell our stockholders about this. Citrix went from way up in the 80s
(or so, don't quite remember) down to 10 (that I do remember). In ONE day the
stock dropped!
Months and Months passed by, and then Microsoft and Citrix came out of meetings
with a deal that Citrix could not refuse. Microsoft bought the
mutli-user/multi-tasking product from Citrix (for a coupld hundred million or
so) and did a relicense back to Citrix, and the price of Citrix stock went back
up. Micosoft and Citrix had this deal. But, we all know who Citrix's
"daddy" really was. The NT 4 multi-user/multi-tasking product came
out and guess what... Folks inside Citrix said that it was the same thing that
they had worked on months and months before!
Microsoft owned a bunch of Citrix at this time. The SEC never has looked at
this close relationship. Citrix is a captive independent company of Micrsofts.
Citrix's employees (many ex-IBMers), who assisted with Windows develpment since
Wndows 3.11 (Citrix came out with the cleaner code that Microsoft ended up
using), were key developers for Microsoft, and they never did get any Micorsoft
stock options or benefits at all. Many Microsoft executives served on Citrix's
board of directors.
If you ever wondered why IBM OS/2 was slow getting out of the gate. Well, Bill
Gates, who was supposed to be a partner with IBM to develop OS/2, had arranged
for a raid on IBM's development group (taking the head and 14 other developers
with them). Can you imagine if the same happened to Linux... if, a key group of
LINUX folks were lured away from Linux to work for a different company that
Microsoft arranged to have set up!
There was a printed story (not on internet) about this in an issue of Pick
System's "Pick World" channel magazine back in the 1990's that someone
here on Groklaw mentioned a while back.
It was said then, that Pick Systems should use Citrix OS/2 based product instead
of UNIX.
The strong arm tactics that Microsoft uses with it's partners has never been
looked at by the US Justice Dept., the SEC, or by any European Union anti-trust
group.
Previous Groklaw mention of this:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20031124125314370&ti
tle=ED+and+IBM+and+Citrix+and+MS+%28reduced+and+clarified%29&type=article&am
p;order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=26530#c26593
Someone who claimed to be a former Citrix employee backs it up here:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20031124125314370&ti
tle=ED+and+IBM+and+Citrix+and+MS+%28reduced+and+clarified%29&type=article&am
p;order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=26607#c26621
Full quote from the Citrix employee post is below:
[begin quote]
Hogwash!
First, I'm posting anonymously for reasons you'll soon understand.
Second, I used to work for Citrix.
Third, Nobody at Citrix, particularly Ed. I, had any love for Microsoft.
To answer the original posters question, most, if not all, of the IBM staff that
came to Citrix were technical, not marketing.
The reason Ed and the rest of them left IBM is that Ed saw that a multi-user
version of OS/2 would be a "really good thing". But, IBM did not want
to damage their, more profitable, mainframe business.
So, Ed convinved Microsoft to license OS/2 to them and then later to license
Windows NT.
Regarding Citrix's UNIX products, they do have ICA Clients for Linux.
They did a UNIX ICA-server product that would allow you to connect to UNIX apps
through ICA. They never did that on Linux, but that was a business decision
based on the size of the market for UNIX applications. I.e., the big users of
UNIX systems are the financial guys and they are all using Solaris. So, that's
what Citrix supported.
To be honest, I'm surprised Ed is on the SCO board. On the occasions that I
talked to him at Citrix, he always struck me as a man of integrity. I suspect he
joined when SCO were still Caldera and I can only hope he doesn't have much say
in what's happening now.
[end quote]
Microsoft is the evil empire! Beware of the dark side!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: magic_user on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 08:04 AM EST |
This OS was used on Atari computers (ST) and on IBM compatables. MS sued them
out of usefulness by using the look-and-feel argument (overlapping windows). I
think this would make a nice addition to your list.
GEM was produced by (I think) Digital Research.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- GEM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 08:47 AM EST
- GEM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 08:59 AM EST
- GEM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:13 AM EST
- GEM - Authored by: Turin on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:54 PM EST
- GEM - Authored by: Pop69 on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:37 PM EST
- GEM - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:55 PM EST
- GEM - Authored by: marbux on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 07:13 PM EST
- GEM - Authored by: Turin on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 12:53 AM EST
- GEM - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:01 AM EST |
I noticed that if you check out the product and book reviews of open-source
products on Amazon.com, you get highly biased negative reviews by microsoft
marketing trolls.
They won't say they work for microsoft but you will notice that they shamelessly
plug "Microsoft Office 2003", "Microsoft Windows XP
Professional" or "Microsoft Windows Server 2003" after their
review. Yes, they use the full name. Not "Office", not
"XP", the full product names.
They sometimes claim that the competitors product accidently distroyed their
hard drives and they had to do costly repairs.
I think it's a major security flaw in Windows for user-mode programs to distroy
your computer. User-mode programs should never have access to adminstrator
commands to allow serious and costly damage. In Linux, for example, user-mode
programs are fenced off.
What I find really awesome is that we have people on Amazon exposing these
microsoft marketing trolls and it's working. I just feel sorry for those who
believe that if they purchase StarOffice, it will reformat their hard drive and
they would have to have a pc technician come out and fix it. Or that they had
to trash entire system because SuSe Linux fried their motherboard.
Amazon needs to verify wether these people purchase these products or not. Do
they have credibility ratings?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:09 AM EST |
Minnesota Consumers and Businesses that bought Microsoft software, or a computer
on which it was installed, can Claim Microsoft Settlement Benefits under a
settlement with a face value amount of $174.5 million.
http://www.microsoftminnesot
asettlement.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:35 AM EST |
--- Steve Browne <sbrowne@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Not about Linux directly, but I noticed on my Windows ME system that
>> when I installed Windows Media Player 10, it deleted the Program
>> FilesMozilla Firefox directory. I tried this several times to be
>> sure, uninstalling WMP10 and re-installing Firefox. No doubt about it.
>>
>> Firefox meets The Weasel!
>>
>> Steve
>> Stephen B. Browne
>> sbrowne@ix.netcom.com
>> "Ubi bene, ibi patria."
>> _______________________________________________
>> NMLUG mailing list
>> NMLUG@nmlug.org
>> http://www.nmlug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmlug
>>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:03 AM EST |
Read about BSA raiding Earnie Ball in 2000.
http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
(and Earnie Ball switched to Linux)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:25 AM EST |
May 7, 1997
Borland International filed a lawsuit against Microsoft, claiming
that the software giant is hiring away Borland's key employees to put it out of
business.
link
Incidently, this affects current developments, as Microsoft's .NET
initiative and C# language was designed by former Borland employees, and much of
the language has remarkable resemblance to Borland's Delphi product. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Borland - Authored by: rweiler on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 04:10 PM EST
|
Authored by: Gothic`Knight on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:58 AM EST |
I was going to go to bed as I've had a bit to say but read through some
additions to this page while I wrote a reply to a comment. This I believe is
fully on topic and a topic that should be investigated but if I am over posting
on the main page PJ move me where it should be best.
In the Opera browser when I last used it, when a page won't display correctly
you have the option to get the browser to announce itself as IE 6. Now call me a
conspirsist if you like but as far as I am aware nothing changes except the site
is fooled into thinking that the browser is IE 6 and low and behold the page
renders.
Now I don't have any evidence or links so maybe someone else has or perhaps this
"anomaly" can be explained but it strikes me as odd and on the surface
appears something says "this not IE, make the rendering look bad" or
in the case of my bank " give this guy the menu but when he clicks on it,
do nothing".
Now this is either an oddity, explainable in some technical manner that means
nothing at all or it is evidence of MS playing unfairly and needs further
investigation.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Bas Burger on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:14 AM EST |
I think this is a good idea, mainly because all in this world is connected.
This way judges will see what mess MS made in the past and maybe decide less
light sentences for MS.
Now the Law keeps forgetting that MS is the bullie from the class, if they are
more pressed to the fact the image about MS might change.
There are still too many people fanboy and girl of Bill Gates.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:55 AM EST |
Plenty of information here:
http://users.rcn.com/srstites/jacuse/sec.complaint.v4.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 12:45 PM EST |
I have often wondered about this one.
http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html#dr
copy/paste from the site
* 1982 - Digital Research sues Microsoft and IBM - Wins - . It was obvious
MS-DOS and its PC-DOS variant were simply rip- offs of Digital Research's CP/M
operating system. It remained only to prove it contained DR code. DR's Gary
Kildall sat down at an IBM PC supplied by IBM and, using a secret code, got it
to pop up a Digital Research copyright notice.
It's case won, Digital Research received monetary compensation and the right to
clone MS-DOS. This is why Microsoft never sued DR over DR-DOS, but used every
other means to destroy it. The settlement was under a strict non- disclosure
agreement, so few even know DR sued, never mind that they won.
Digital Research was purchased by Novel and destroyed by neglect and
mismanagement. The products now belong to Caldera, which has filed suit against
Microsoft over predatory practices used to destroy DR-DOS's market.
If anyone has the info on this one that verifies this case it should certainly
be included in this list.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 02:29 PM EST |
Wouldn't it be nice to have a list of software that has vanished from the market
after MS has chosen to 'integrate' that kind of functionality into the operating
system?
Most famous should be Netscape/IE, but I can also remember the 'disk-doublers'
(Stacker?), disk-defragmenters, Netware, WinZip (not yet vanished, but who needs
it with XPs ability to zip and unzip), Office-Applications/MS-Office (ok, not
OS, but bundled),
While it might be argued that that funcionality is/should be part of the OS, but
it might help build a history of MS using its position as OS-producer to push
competitors away from the market. After all, none of this functionality was
present in DOS/Windows before the third-party solutions were marketed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 03:08 PM EST |
This is quite a collectionj you have. Is it worthwhile to add Microsoft's own
pages on their licensing agreements terms and conditions? IMHO this is very
useful evidence of anti-competitive behaviour directed as excluding FOSS.
I
would suggest at least
The Microsoft Royalty Free
Protocol Licensing agreement
MCPP
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 03:14 PM EST |
PJ: I think is a great idea to gather this resource page; but it should have
only "Litigation Resources". I see a lot of journal and news
references, that are not true trial documents, neither valid proofs. I think in
this page you should remove all doubtful documents; unfortunately, most news are
biased (on one or other side), or report opinions that are not sustainable as
legal testimony. Maybe you can have another "news link" section, with
both the very biased articles you have reported promoting SCO, and the
anti-Microsoft biased articles, telling "I think it should be
connected", but showing no hard evidence. But in the Litigation Resource, I
think there should be only material presented on previous trials, so it can be
really useful on new trials; as it was showed masterfully yesterday, news are
not good as "proof" on a trial, because papers and reporters have not
the objectives that judges and jurys should have.
Thanks for all the true legal resources, very interesting and useful.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 03:24 PM EST |
Slightly off topic (litigation about trademarks not IP or licenses), but
funny:
The pillow
case
(pun intended).
John[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 03:45 PM EST |
for creating this framework - I'm blown away by how extensive it is already.
Since the SCO debacle is coming to a close, I've lost a great deal of interest
in the day to day activities. The current M$ threat causes me concern - they
should think, more than once, before continuing business as usual. A quick
review of what happened to SCO should cause them pause. While B. Gates thinks,
and his money confirms, that he is smarter than everyone who contributes to
Groklaw, the facts prove otherwise. Continue BG at your own risk.
Thank you PJ, for furthering your impact in the backwaters of the SCO/M$'s pond.
I know you value your freedom, but you make it possible for everyone to enjoy
theirs, too. May the new year bring you what you want most, and more success in
fighting against those who would stifle freedom.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tbogart on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 03:47 PM EST |
In the OS/2 section, the bullet "Kodak tangles with Microsoft over Win
XP" doesn't seem to have anything to do with OS/2.
Thanks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 03:49 PM EST |
In a previous thread here on Groklaw, there was some debate as to whether an
awarded extension of time for IBM (until Jan 20th) meant that TSG would also get
the same extension. I took the position that IBM was the only one who asked for
it, and that the "Stipulated" order submitted by TSG and G2 held no
weight.
Looks like I was wrong. Doc 363 is now on Pacer, and it looks
like Judge Kimball signed off on the stipulated order that TSG and G2 submitted,
including the "SCO's response shall be due on the same day as IBM's" language. I
guess that is as official as it gets, TSG and IBM both get a delay
until Jan 20th.
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it."
-- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 04:01 PM EST |
I am not quite sure how to reconcile MS's statement and the Brazilian
offical decision.
The Brazilian CADE ordered the process to be closed,
indeed.
But it also ordered additional investigations relating 3 different
issues:
(1) probable ilegality from the buyers (two government-owned
financial institutions) due to no public RFP. This might affect MS because the
current contract may be voided by court;
(2) probable ilegality from
buyers/sellers for writing, in the contracts, the values in foreign (to Brazil)
currency. MS is not directly (so far) involved here since the negotiations were
done between the buyers and a MS partner in Brazil.
(3) But it went ahead
and also ordered a federal department to investigate possible issues regarding
(indirectly) monopoly, not addressed in the official decision. And this
goes squarely on MS.
So, at least as of this decision, MS was not yet out
of the fire. The specific complaint(s) was/were dismissed, but the CADE saw
reason to request more discovery -- which may, or may not, end up on new issues.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 04:41 PM EST |
The settlement, iirc, was driven at least in part because MS sued Corel for
patent infringement. One of them, as far as I could make out, was "for
looking words up in an electronic dictionary". In other words, it sounded
like a patent that should never have been granted (like the other patents
involved here, too).
As part of it (and this is very anti-competitive) Corel agreed to redevelop
WordPerfect as a dedicated Windows program (don't forget - it was originally
very cross-platform), and they also agreed to drop the internationalisation of
WordPerfect. As far as I'm aware, although WordPerfect can still handle foreign
characters, pretty much all of its internationalisation stuff is no longer
available.
If any information on this settlement can be obtained, I think it could turn out
to be a mine of useful information. I know the shares that MS bought were
non-voting, but MS had a major influence on what happened in Corel at the time -
all very much to MS's advantage.
Okay, I know that MS may have saved Corel from bankruptcy - but was that
imminent bankruptcy down to MS's illegal actions...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:08 PM EST |
Here's an article with several case studies of companies that have partnered
with Microsoft and what has happened to them afterwards.
http://www.jas.com/shame/shame/casestudies.html
A few other cases I can think of
Blue Mountain Arts
outlook express /Webtv were blocking Blue Mountain Cards (which started after
microsoft started their own greeting card service)
TV Host
developed a television guide for pc's. microsoft gained access to their product
and business plan during negotiations then decided to write their own product
and integrate it into the operating system.
STAC
I heard somewhere that after microsoft lost the STAC case, they successfully
sued STAC for using undocumented DOS functions. Can anyone confirm this?
Antitrust vs Fraud
http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/tmblog/archives/004086.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jkondis on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:42 PM EST |
I didn't see this anywhere in the list:
MS
Fakes Video Evidence in its Antitrust Trial [Register article - the Reuters
article seems to have disappeared]
--- Don't steal. Microsoft hates
competition. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:48 PM EST |
The March of Dimes originally mission was the fight against Polio, they suceeded
in their fight with the helping fund the creation the Salk and sabin vaccines.
After they won the fight rather than going out of business, they realized they
had a great infrastructure to use in the fight for other health issues, and they
took up the cause of birth defects and infant mortality.
Sometime soon(who am I kidding?) the fight against SCO is going to end, and I'm
glad to see that Groklaw is sowing the seeds for it's continued presense in the
fight against the forces that would destroy the Open Source Movement.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 06:32 PM EST |
IANAL, etc.
I think it would be very useful to have an analysis of the MS End User License
Agreement (EULA) and how it has changed over the course of time. What were the
terms for Windows 3.1, how about for Windows XP SP2. Service packs now modify
or replace the EULA from the purchased product, has this always been the case?
Just some directions for research.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: emmenjay on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 07:25 PM EST |
The "Kodak" piece under the OS/2 heading does not appear to be related
to OS/2. Perhaps it should be under another heading.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Zarbo on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:18 PM EST |
I think having all this information in one place is a great idea. It surely
will be useful to some level and will save someone a lot of effort. I am just
not certain to what extent it can be used as "evidence". I seek enlightenment,
here. AllParadox, marbux, webster, ... comments?
The information is
collected to use as a reference, and could well end up cited as evidence in a
lawsuit by parties unknown. Have you thought about ways of preserving the
Web-based evidence and documentation in the repository, as opposed to links? If
the original Web data goes away, just like in the SCOG mess, so does some useful
evidence or an essential piece of the data trail. A careful edit (or purge) of
on-line HTML and words no longer point in the same direction or support the same
arguments. Picture dangling links pointing into an information black
hole.
Also, imagine having to subpeona the original "source" for hundreds
of linked documents, some of which might be message board posts, HTML pages,
emails, or other electronic, "volatile" data. What happens if the original is
truly gone and not just hidden on a tape in some closet? Is the bit-mapped
rendering acceptable? Just how does this intersection between the digital age
and the courts work?
Even for hard-copy documents that are scanned and
processed with OCR software, there are issues of veracity unless there is some
process followed that preserves the integrity of the information. We cannot
always count on the honesty of the sources. Should there be a rating system for
the trustworthiness of court documents versus marketing releases from Microsoft?
Does anyone see this as an issue?
I bring this up because I believe that
we are approaching the point where any digital medium may be realistically
falsified. Today this is an issue with print, tomorrow an issue with video and
sound. Given that possibility, there must be some way to ensure that you are
looking at or hearing an accurate representation of the true information at some
given moment in time.
For Web-based data, what is really needed is a
capture tool that, given a URL, grabs the page(s), the style, the graphics, and
the whole shebang or captures the proper rendering of the page. That
appears to be only part of the battle, however. "Is that really what was
there at the time?", is the question I can see being asked by a legal opponent.
What kind of capture/preservation process is needed to make sure that digital
evidence doesn't get altered from its original form and that it is usable in a
legal proceeding?
So that brings me to some more
questions:
What are the legal standards for using this type
of "volatile" information as evidence in court?
How do you insulate
the rendering of the information (HTML -> bit-mapped graphics, for example)
from the actual underlying data? [do you store the rendering tool(s) or the
bit-mapped information or the original "source" or all three?]
How
do you objectively ensure that the data you are presenting has not been altered
to enhance your case or save your skin?
What happens with volatile
documents that no longer exist in their original form because of loss or purges?
Is the rendered version proof that the document and information really
existed?
One would suspect that deleting Web site data on a
regular basis will start happening, just like with email archives. Given that
possibility, there has to be some way to both preserve the snapshot of the data
and ensure that later you are looking at (or hearing) a true facsimile
rather than a dummied-up simulacrum of the information in question.
Does
anyone else see this as an issue? With an opponent like Microsoft, I think this
is bound to come up.
--Zarbo++;
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- it isn't evidence - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 05:03 AM EST
- Dear Zarbo - Authored by: webster on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:49 PM EST
- Dear Zarbo - Authored by: Zarbo on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 11:57 PM EST
|
Authored by: Sunfish on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:33 PM EST |
here is a link to the story
[url]http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,16849,00.html[/url][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:13 PM EST |
Is it just me or does it seem like there's an awful lot of legal activity
surrounding Microsoft.
I'm wondering: Can anyone think of a company with
as much commercial presence as Microsoft with this many legal actions having
been taken against it? I can easily imagine how a corporation the size of,
say, General Motors, Ford, a few of the big pharmaceutical companies have a fair
number of lawsuits that they have to defend against but, in Microsoft's case, it
seems like a huge number. Especially given the relatively brief lifetime
of the company (approximately 25 years).
What I find particularly
disconcerting is that these aren't the same sort of legal actions being taken
either. While you'll see a lot of things like product liability suits,
negligence, etc., taken out against the companies like GM or Ford, in
Microsoft's case, they're more like theft cases. Makes you wonder how anyone can
find Microsoft a good long-term investment. They spend an awful lot of time in
the courts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:47 PM EST |
And a lot more than I would have imagined! Says a lot about the Criminal
Monopoly and their continuous bad habits. Somehow I just knew you would be
working over Christmas..... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:10 PM EST |
I just ran accross this
http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2004/12/20/8257/4850
it is about a shrink wrap issue folks here might find interesting. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:13 PM EST |
Why blame Microsoft? I do believe the FOSS and Microsoft are both playing the
same game. Both have little respect for frivolous/silly patents. What FOSS
intends to root out through awareness - MS is doing by trial and error and
trying to basically live with it. Do not forget that MS has some of the best
brains in the industry who can very easily realize the stupidity of patenting
software and with capital in hands - they do the only thing permitted by law -
buy out the patent holder. FOSS should join hands with MS on the condition that
MS not apply for patents while infringng other idiotic ones. And FOSS should
support MS.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: M on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:32 PM EST |
<tinfoilhat>
Does anyone else find it interesting that SCO was pushing for an extremely close
deadline for the unsealing of documents, and simultaneously were giving out
Change of Control agreements to the senior board members? I don't know what's
in the document that SCO has apparently found and wants to make public, but
judging by their behaviour, SCO seems to think that IBM would rather buy them
out than let this document be revealed to the public...
</tinfoilhat>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ujay on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:38 PM EST |
A rather interesting time at MS HQ tomorrow. Considering how PJ et al have
eviscerated SCO, they have to worry about such information being collected and
reviewed here.
---
Oh NO! Spankme.com just threw a brick through our Windows![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 03:56 AM EST |
I could not find a reference here but the other incidious thing about Microsoft
is their "tax" and other possibly dubious contracts with PC suppliers
that force you to but a licence for some Microsoft Operating System when buying
a PC from them even if:-
1) You are not going to run ay Microsoft O/S on the PC
2) You already have a valid licence for the Microsoft O/S for that System. eg,
you are upgrading a system or are a Microsoft Partner and pay them a sum of
money for a range of software.
Try to buy a laptop from the likes of Dell (or most other suppliers) without an
O/S from Microsoft included.
IMHO (and IANAL) this is a clear restrictive practice and should be outlawed. It
seems that your are 'guilty before charge' is you do this. It should be up to
the suppliers of the Software (Or their appointed agents) to prove that you are
using their product without a valid license after the fact rather than as a
pre-requisite to the purchase of some hardware.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 05:02 AM EST |
White paper:
MICROSOFT’S EXPANDING MONOPOLIES:
CASTING A WIDER
.NET
Link:
http://www.pro
competition.org/headlines/WhitePaper5_15.pdf
The white paper is a
bit old (May 2001) but still an interesting read. In my view it is an
interesting analysis of Microsofts business practices. Here is a teaser from
the conclusion:
To ensure that consumers are forced to adopt the
"Internet" version of Windows (which
Microsoft has dubbed .NET) in accordance
with Microsoft's time schedule, Microsoft
will use techniques even more blatant
than those it used to force adoption of its browser,
where its market share now
exceeds 88%. For example, Microsoft has hardwired key
components of its
"Internet" Windows into its forthcoming Windows XP desktop product
in a way that
consumers cannot alter or delete, and that some of which load and
run
automatically whenever consumers turn on their machines. Simultaneously,
Microsoft
has stripped computer makers of their ability to add icons of
third-party software vendors
onto the desktop or in the start menu. When
consumers start Windows XP, therefore,
consumers will have precisely one
browser, one email product, one media player, one
authentication service, and
one instant messaging program. The browser bolted to
Windows XP similarly
"hardwires" one media player, one instant messaging service, one
search engine,
and one word processor into the program; while depriving consumer of
choice by
forcing only one news service, one travel service, one calendar, and
one
magazine into their browser’s personal toolbar.
Regards, Peter
Frandsen
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: haegarth on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:49 AM EST |
Well, I'm stunned. This is an overwhelming resource. Thanks to all who
contributed and to PJ for her website.
---
MS holds the patent on FUD, and SCO is its licensee....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 10:18 AM EST |
Comany execs sometimes make statements that they will not sue FOSS developers on
patent grounds e.g IBM, Novell. Perhaps the community should keep a database of
such promises and if a lawsuit is ever brought the statements could be used as a
basis for a countersuit using promissory estoppel.
IANAL so this is probably completely off base.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Arthur Marsh on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 12:14 PM EST |
Although previously mentioned on Groklaw, the Sybase / Microsoft
"partnership" is not mentioned on this page.
Also, does anyone have a working link to the "Microsoft Monopoly"
board game?
---
http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 12:41 PM EST |
Perhaps a section on Software Patents and prior art would be
of value as well. Most if not all Microsoft patents are not
unique inventions. This would be a useful research site to
protect us from the US patent system. This does not have to
be Microsoft specific. I think many software patents are
trivial and need to be de-bunked. Just a thought.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST |
Borland sues MS over staff poaching
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2065714,00.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 02:52 PM EST |
VMS + 1 = WNT = Microsoft Paid Digital since they threatened a lawsuit
http://www.winntmag.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/4652/4652.html
Microsoft settles most of patent lawsuit with AT&T
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;743041766;fp;512;fpid;1059559045
Microsoft discrimination case grows
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-255280.html?legacy=cnet
Microsoft Vs Wang
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-210967.html?legacy=cnet
The following is a nice resource for seeing other awards...
http://www.patenting-art.com/economic/awards.htm
It states that Microsoft paid 90 million in Wang lawsuit.
* Also beside just the companies involved, a bit of elaboration
would be handy beside his each entry.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 10:44 PM EST |
The link "Microsoft, hardware vendors face raft of OEM license suits" in the
miscellaneous section doesn't work because it contains an extra space.
How
about a section for the HIPAA controversy? A couple of years ago Microsoft had
an EULA which allowed Microsoft to silently update your computer's software,
which violated medical privacy regulations. http:
//reviews.infoworld.com/article/02/09/13/020916opwinman_1.html.
Microsoft
allegedly solved the problem by issuing a clarification of the license, a
clarification which I haven't been able to find anywhere. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: iraskygazer on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 01:08 AM EST |
It is ironic that the Microsoft money machine was produced by the free and open
copying of their operating system. Bill knew of ways to prevent copying of the
early versions of the OS but chose to use this free and open copying as a
marketing tool. Now that MS has the entire world in its legal grasp it is
preparing methods to close the vise. I'm glad that Groklaw exists to present the
history of MS trends, to include both legal and other processes. I just hope we
aren't too late to prevent a catastrophe. I hope the world will have enough
strength to resist 'world dominance of software development' by Microsoft. In
this I'm not saying that MS has not done some good for the entire world. But we,
the world FOSS community, need to be careful when reviewing any steps MS may
take to close their grip on the future of all software.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 07:10 PM EST |
How About adding Win Modems?
they dont work (if at all) without special software.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 07:32 PM EST |
This this useful?
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0617att.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 08:09 PM EST |
I remember reading some articles a while ago that
describe how MS would modify protocols so they would
not work with competitors. I'm trying to find some
of those articles.
I found this:
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1005ms.html
at the bottom is an article by SPA and a MS rebuttal.
neither are available anymore.
In an attempt to find it, I came across this Japanese site
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ki4s-nkmr/mswatch12.html
Although I can not read Japanese, the links in it maybe
fill in some gaps.
Here's an article on the SPA paper
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0622spa.html
I found this article on MS implementing tcp/ip
in win 95.
http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/1996/96-04-01micr.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 04 2005 @ 02:56 PM EST |
I try to collect as much information on Microsoft as I can for my site MS Versus and its online book, both all about
Microsoft. I note all sources in detail. The book prints out to over 100
pages. Anyone can contribute, beyond just the topic of litigation.
I
hate to self-promote in comments, but I think it's a decent source of a lot of
information, especially their conduct. It would go in the "Miscellaneous" or
"Topics/Miscellaneous" section. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Saturday, January 08 2005 @ 10:44 PM EST |
I don't know how much of the following link is redundant, I found it
looking
through some old, old bookmark files I had.
Microsoft the
company
--- You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:08 AM EST |
It's my impression many of the cases brought against Microsoft and
settled have gag orders. I wonder if these can be repealed (correct
term)? To what end this would be useful, I don't know since it's not
known what's been silenced.
Just a thought anyway.
---
You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:00 PM EST |
They have been mentioned elsewhere on GL but this post is just to make
sure they get achived. Apologies for the duplicated effort.
Certificate of Authenticity Cases
From the MS web site
Lawsuits which allege copyright and trademark infringement have been filed
against the following:
Monarch Technology Inc. of San Clemente, Calif.
Kenneth Xu of Union City, Calif.
Era Limited of Lake Zurich, Ill.
Micro Info Tech (USA) Corp. of Edison, N.J.
Affordable Computer Warehouse of Clinton, N.Y.
Warp Systems/Computers LLC of Raleigh, N.C.
Master Computer Inc. of State College, Pa.
Software Provisions of Vancouver, Wash.
Defendants in each case allegedly continued their distribution of counterfeit
COA labels or unlicensed software even after they were contacted by
Microsoft
and before the lawsuits were filed requesting that they halt their illegal
activities.
++++++++++++
From El Reg
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/12/dutch_resellers/
100 Dutch resellers facing legal action from MS.
Sorry no further details on this at the minute. Maybe (an)other poster(s) can
help here?
--
MadScientist
************************
RE: Translation of the Webwereld article
Authored by: Darkelve on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:39 AM EST
Translation of original article at:
http://www.webwereld.nl/nieuws/20510.phtml
"Heavy damage claims [from] MS for Resellers"
Wednesday, january 12 2005 - Microsoft Netherlands has started an offensive
against reseller which are said to sell licenses in illegal ways [litterally:
in
ways departing from the original purpose]. The resellers are furious.
distributeurs zijn razend.
(By Laurens Verhagen)
Illustration by: Tino Perez
It is unknown exactly how many companies have been contacted by the
lawyers of
the software concern. However, Hein Kernkamp (the name of both the lawyer
and
his company), a lawyer from Rotterdam, says his company continues to
receive
more cases every week.
His company represent a number of them in their battle against Microsoft.
The
software company itself states that, by now, 'several hundreds' resellers end
distributors have been contacted [they received a letter]. A few dozens of
these
have effectively received a damage claim.
At stake is the reselling of software licenses without a cd-rom and booklet.
According to Microsoft, this is a forbidden practice, but a lot of ICT
companies
have - in their own opinion with [the] full confidence [they did nothing
wrong].
The position of Microsoft, however, is that only the combination of sticker,
hologram, booklet and CD-rom can be sold. But often this is not the case.
An ICT company from the city of Overijssel (which does not want to be
named,
since the procedure with MS is still running), is one of the targets of
Microsoft. A short while ago, this company got a damage claim of 40 000
euro on
its doormat.
[Subtitle] In good faith
The CEO is stupified: "We have acted completely in good faith. We always
paid for the license without fail."
Between 2001 and 2003, the company did business with the distributor
License
Express. License Express traded in second-hand licenses, e.g. bought from
multinationals in the possession of double licenses. This was only about the
stickers, without the -according to Microsoft- essential booklets and CD's.
The company from Overijssel stopped with these licenses in June 2003,
because it
became clear MS has problems with this practice.
Yet MS came last week with the damage claim. "This is unheard of",
according to the director when contacted by WebWereld. "I have been doing
business with MS for years. Now they are abusing their position. I will not
accept this at all."
Forbidden
He is not the only one that thinks like this, says lawyer Kernkamp. "Cases
like these are occurring in all of the country. MS wants the trade in loose
stickers to be forbidden. They are saying "we do not sell loose license
stickers, so others are not allowed to do that either".
Kernkamp, who cannot give opinions about individual cases, says that MS
*does*,
however, sells loose licenses, e.g. to OEM parties. "According to the
rules
of the free market, you cannot have any problems with this practice if others
do
what you are doing yourself".
Microsoft itself is, according to the lawyer 'extremely vague' about its
license
politics. Kernkamp would like it best if the facts come to the surfuce in a
...[litteral: bottom procedure - meaning what??]
Finally, the lawyer notes that in the US, loose licenses (license only) *are*
allowed by MS.
In a reaction, MS states the goal of this action is to make the distribution
channel aware of the fact that illegal software cannot be tolerated. When
being
asked the question if illegal software is indeed what this is what is the case
here, the spokesman avoided the question by saying
"we are not going to discuss this".
Square brackets are remarks by me, text liberally translated. Original source:
webwereld, see link at top of this message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:04 PM EST |
Just to let everyone know: this ran originally on Dec. 12.
I keep moving it up so it isn't so hard to find. When we
get our static page done, soon, I'll put it back where it was
originally.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|