decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 11:35 PM EST

This is interesting, and it got me thinking. The Department of Justice has been looking into some aspects of Microsoft's compliance with the final settlement of the antitrust trial, and SCO's name came up.

In connection with the Department of Justice's monitoring of Microsoft's compliance in US v. Microsoft, they provide the court with status reports every six months on how things are going. Their most recent report has just been made available.

At the October 24, 2003 status conference, Judge Kollar-Kotelly directed the DOJ to file a report on January 16, just before the next court hearing on January 23rd, updating her on some issues related to Microsoft's licensing, specifically why so few companies were signing up:

"A judge has asked the US Department of Justice to investigate why only nine companies have signed up to license Microsoft's technology for their own software products, an offering forming part of the federal antitrust settlement with the software company.

"During an antitrust settlement oversight hearing Friday, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly questioned why more companies hadn't taken advantage of the licensing portion of the antitrust settlement, approved by Kollar-Kotelly in late 2002.

"Kollar-Kotelly has asked the DOJ to interview software companies to see if changes are needed in the licensing terms in the antitrust settlement. In a July hearing, Kollar-Kotelly said new licensing terms that Microsoft would later announce should satisfy concerns over royalty rates Microsoft was charging for its communications protocols."

That report is now available. When Microsoft appeared at that conference, it listed three new licensees as examples of the licensing program's success, one of them SCO, and argued the program was a success.

If some didn't want to sign up, that was their right, they argued. After all, MS can't force them to want to interoperate with Microsoft products:

"Microsoft defended its progress, claiming that it was talking to almost 40 suppliers about licensing its technology. The progress from four to nine licensees in three months shows a large effort on Microsoft's part, Desler insisted.

"'We've taken some aggressive steps in terms of promoting this program and in terms of educating the industry about it,' Desler added. 'We've more than doubled the number of licensees we have in three months. This does show some momentum, but this is still a work in progress.'"

However, in the new status report, the DOJ finds after investigation that this SCO license was taken in the context of developing a "broader relationship" with Microsoft, citing MS's earlier paying SCO for a patent and licensing rights.

In other words, according to my reading, they are saying it hardly counts as an example of companies thinking Microsoft's terms for licensing are acceptable, because there was a deal here, whereby each helped the other, not an example of a company just signing up because the licensing terms were on their own merits desirable or at least acceptable to them.

That explains, no doubt, why IBM has an interest in this license's terms and asked to see it in connection with the law suit. It also means to me that it is probably time to focus a bit more on this deal that was struck. What patent did Microsoft sign up to use? What patent did SCO have at the time? And what does Microsoft plan to use the patent for? It also frames Microsoft's licensing program in the appropriate context, for me anyway. How broad is this "broader relationship"?

The status report's final section is written by Microsoft, so we get to see their reply to the concern. First, here is what the DOJ says about the SCO signup:

"Third, two companies — EMC and SCO — took their licenses in the context of developing broader relationships with Microsoft. On May 19, 2003, SCO provided Microsoft with a license covering SCO's UNIX technology, including patent and source code licenses.(6)

"(ftnt 6.) Press Release, SCO, SCO Announces UNIX Licensing Deal with Microsoft (May 19, 2003) at http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=109360. Also, during the October 24, 2003 Status Conference, the Court referred to SCO as being "connected to the open source" Linux community. Transcript of Status Conference at 6 (Oct. 24, 2003). SCO's relationship with that community has become largely hostile. The SCO Group is currently seeking to enforce intellectual property rights against users of Linux client and server technology. Over the past six months, SCO has informed thousands of Linux end users that certain Linux products may violate UNIX intellectual property owned by SCO. Press Release, SCO, SCO Announces New Initiatives to Enforce Intellectual Property Rights (Dec. 22, 2003) at http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=125089."

Microsoft's reply section basically says, So what? Here's 'So what?' in legalese:

"Finally, the Plaintiffs have expressed concern that certain licensees, such as EMC and SCO, have relationships with Microsoft that are broader than their MCPP licenses. Microsoft has relationships with a wide variety of firms in the PC ecosystem. Microsoft believes that it should be willing to explore broader relationships with those prospective MCPP licensees who are interested in such relationships. Such relationships will typically entail additional technology sharing or product development arrangements, which should be seen as beneficial. Microsoft's willingness to explore a broader relationship does not reduce those firms' ability or incentives to use the licensed protocols in furtherance of the remedial goals of the Final Judgments."

You may find it of interest to see that some complaints the Department of Justice and the New York Attorney General Elliiot Spitzer have received were ignored as being "nonsubstantive", meaning that in their view the complaints were not properly framed as being about Microsoft's compliance with the settlement. Others were taken seriously and are being investigated right now or have been acted upon already. For example, there were complaints lodged about not being able to remove Microsoft Messenger from XP, and Microsoft eventually acted on the complaints like this:

"Regarding the complaints concerning the inability for users to uninstall Windows Messenger from Windows XP, Microsoft has provided instructions on how to prevent Windows Messenger from running in Windows XP at the following link: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=302089."

The status report also tells us that one current investigation, based on complaints received, has to do with non-assertion of patents:

"With respect to the second issue concerning a non-assertion of patents provision included in the uniform OEM license, Plaintiffs have received an additional complaint and continue to gather information and analyze the issues presented."

Evidently, specific complaints that related directly to the terms of the final settlement were and are being investigated and acted on. The settlement terms were the following:

"Under the settlement, Microsoft:

-May not participate in exclusive deals that could hurt competitors.
-Must offer uniform contract terms for computer manufacturers.
-Must let manufacturers and customers remove icons from desktops for some Microsoft features.
-Must release some technical information to rival software developers."

Presumably, anything related to these four points would be substantive. The Department of Justice's Microsoft page is here. On this page, it says that communications to them about Microsoft's compliance can be addressed to:

Renata B. Hesse
Chief, Networks & Technology Section
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
600 E Street, NW
Suite 9500
Washington, DC 20530

Their page for public comments is here.

There is also a web site established for coordinated state enforcement of federal court judgments against the Microsoft Corporation and they say:

"If you believe Microsoft is violating either of the state final judgments, you can file a complaint by submitting an on-line complaint or by mailing a written complaint (along with supporting documentation, if available) to:

"Coordinated State Enforcement of Microsoft Antitrust Judgments
c/o California Office of the Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102"

The Final Judgment in the case, entered by United States District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the District of Columbia in November 2002, mandated the creation of a three-person Technical Committee to assist in both monitoring compliance with and enforcing the terms of the settlement. They say complaints may be submitted via email to Complaints@TheTC.org.

As you recall, Massachusetts is the sole holdout state refusing to approve the settlement, and Massachusetts is still taking complaints as well, although their web site doesn't make it simple to figure out how to file one. Their interest is broader than the four settlement points, however. Their attorney general says the licensing program is not working and he is investigating anticompetitive behavior by Microsoft against rival browsers and Adobe (see also here) and has been actively asking for input:

"'If Microsoft is taking steps to hobble the competitive effectiveness of these rival products and thereby supplant them, such serial killing of competing technologies is a serious and troubling prospect,' wrote Thomas F. Reilly, the attorney general in Massachusetts.

"Microsoft and the Justice Department were expected to describe sometime later the company's efforts to abide by terms of the settlement. The company declined to comment immediately on Massachusetts' claims.

"Reilly described unspecified reports as the source of these latest allegations against Microsoft; the attorney general's office has actively solicited complaints on its Web site about Microsoft's business conduct.

"Massachusetts also criticized a key element of the antitrust settlement as ineffective. One of the most important provisions of the landmark settlement compels Microsoft to permit competitors to license parts of its technology to build products that seamlessly communicate with computers running Windows software.

"Massachusetts said the program was feckless, arguing that the prices Microsoft charges rivals were too high and that the company provides only incomplete information to competitors."

Here is their timeline of events:

"November 1, 2002 Judge Kollar-Kotelly issues three separate orders: (1) Approving DOJ's settlement with Microsoft, formalized in its proposed Consent Judgment, subject to one amendment giving the court continuing jurisdiction; (2) Approving the "settling states" consent judgment with Microsoft, also subject to its continuing jurisdiction; and (3) Ordering a remedy in the case pursued by the "non-settling states." That remedy, imposed after the remedies trial, substantially tracks the DOJ settlement, with some modifications.

"November 29, 2002 Massachusetts announces it is appealing Judge Kollar-Kotelly's order on remedies, seeking to have the D.C. Court of Appeals review the trial court's order and to impose additional remedies addressing Microsoft's past and future conduct."

Back in May, in a press release, they listed what they saw as issues in the settlement:

"The court-ordered remedy issued last year in the Microsoft antitrust case fails to restore competition, help consumers, or hold Microsoft accountable for its unlawful actions, Attorney General Tom Reilly argued today in a brief filed with the federal appeals court. . . . AG Reilly's appeal brief addresses a variety of defects in the court-ordered remedy including:

* Failure to require Microsoft to stop unlawfully commingling its software code (for instance, inextricably interweaving the Internet Explorer browser into the operating system so that it cannot be reasonably removed).

* Failure to stop Microsoft's proven illegal practice of deceiving software developers about its products. The states had proposed a remedy that required Microsoft to follow a 'truth in advertising' practice by prohibiting it from misleading software developers about its support for industry standards. According to the appellate brief filed today, Microsoft founder Bill Gates admitted during remedy proceedings that Microsoft routinely makes knowingly inaccurate claims regarding its compliance with industry standards.

* Failure to address Microsoft's ill-gotten gains and the reality that it controls the now-dominant browser and has successfully weakened its competition, Java.

* Failure to properly protect new technologies, such as web services, from future predatory actions on the part of Microsoft.

* Failure to place any effective disclosure requirements on Microsoft, regarding how other companies' products can interoperate with Windows.

"Assistant Attorney General Glenn Kaplan, Assistant Attorney General Sara Hinchey and Assistant Attorney General Chris Barry-Smith of AG Reilly's Office are overseeing the Microsoft appeal."

It's probably too late to file a complaint with the DOJ or NY State or California and have it be considered at the upcoming hearing on January 23, which is what the current status report was prepared for. But there is another status report, presumably, in six months. The Massachusetts appeal is a different issue. There is also, of course, the EU Commission investigation into Microsoft, and that proceeding is looking into different issues.

One other tidbit worth mentioning. The judge refused to allow an email from a Microsoft exec to Bill Gates and others to be considered when the states asked her to consider it, back before most of them settled, but only because in her view it was too late for it to be considered. It's an interesting email in our context, because in it, the executive complained to Gates et al about Intel encouraging companies to use Linux and outlined steps he planned to take to pay Intel back:

"THE AUGUST 2000 e-mail from then Microsoft Vice President Joachim Kempin to other top level officials, including Chairman Bill Gates, said that chipmaker Intel was lobbying other computer makers 'who are not (Microsoft) friendly in the first place and ... encouraging them to go to Linux.' Linux is a free operating system that competes with Microsoft Windows. (MSNBC is a joint venture between Microsoft and NBC.)

"During the initial six-week remedy hearing Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that lawyers for the nine states pushing the court to impose tougher sanctions on Microsoft couldn’t admit the Kempin e-mail while cross-examining Gates. Kollar-Kotelly ruled the e-mail was outside the scope of the initial antitrust trial for which the company was found to have violated antitrust laws. . . .

"In his e-mail to Gates, Kempin lays out a strategy for a unilateral strike against Intel for having the audacity to suggest to computer makers that Linux might be a choice for consumers. Kempin said he planned to 'stop any go-to-market activities with Intel (and) only work with their competitors.'

"Kempin also notes that he would 'try and restrict source code deliveries where possible and be less gracious when interpreting agreements — again without being obvious about it.'”

It wouldn't be too late to present the email in any new trial, and considering that the DOJ sees SCO and MS as having a relationship... well, you get it. I'm wondering if Massachusetts might be interested in looking into just how broad the "broader relationship" between the two companies is. An investigation might lead to some solid answers. Is Massachusetts focused on Microsoft's anti-Linux conduct and do they view Linux as a Microsoft competitor? Presumably they do, but are they following the SCO story at all? Does it fit into that context? I don't know, but judging from this email, evidently it is not altogether irrational to look for deliberately nonobvious moves by Microsoft against Linux.


  


DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts | 171 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Quid pro quo on licenses from MS
Authored by: Copycat on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 12:02 AM EST
SCO was one of the first five companies to get the MS license required in the
Antitrust case. Have they used it? Does anyone know about the other eight
companies -- are they equally egregious examples of sucking up?

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 12:02 AM EST
Not much to add, but please accept my sincere appreciation of your fine work.

SCO is just the first battle in an entire war. I think that by 2004 it will be
clear to most people in the industry, that MS got a real problem on their hands
with OSS. As MS problems become more and more visible expect a an even greater
barrage of FUD from Redmond than today.

There is most certainly a post-SCO future for Groklaw.

Thanks again for all the great work.

/Lars

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 12:05 AM EST
Nice work, PJ. Lots of interesting stuff here. I usually don't find a lot of
convincing evidence for the conspiracy theories, but this looks like a
possibility...

Frankly, wouldn't put anything past M$, they have too much to lose.

--------
Larry
no longer lurking

[ Reply to This | # ]

Great research...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 12:06 AM EST

Have you sent it to the MA AG?

[ Reply to This | # ]

=O
Authored by: ctrawick on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 12:21 AM EST
mind.boggle();

PJ, I need not ask where you get this stuff (since you courtiously provided
links), but how is it that you sift through the chaos of the American media,
legal system, and financial reporting and so consistently produce this quality
of insight?

I know, "that's what they pay me for" or something like that...
But still, I can't imagine knowing anything in this direction without this
site.

chris

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 12:23 AM EST
That settles it.
SCO is a Microsoft proxy.
I don't know how you'd prove it but it's not a paranoid delusion anymore.
Memo to IBM : Cry 'Havoc' and let loose the dogs of war.

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: J.F. on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 12:35 AM EST
It's not surprising that no one is jumping at the chance to get the MS
interoperability kit - MS wants $50,000 up front for a specification sheet with
no example code, and a per unit fee for end software. They might as well have
not bothered.

This is complying with the DOJ? Look at another company for example. The
development kit for the Sony Playstation 2 (from Sony) is only $20,000 and
includes documentation, libraries, full example code, plus a workstation equiped
with special hardware to prototype and debug your games. Their per unit fee to
distribute the resultant games is also much lower.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clever agreement that prohibits real competition
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 12:36 AM EST
This Microsoft "required license" is a very clever lie. In the desktop operating system and office application markets. the ONLY viable competitor is open source software. But Microsoft cleverly made sure that the licensing agreement imposes conditions that "happen" to be incompatible with open source software. In other words, Microsoft's only real competitors cannot benefit from the condition imposed on Microsoft. And this condition was specifically imposed because Microsoft had already been found guilty, and this was supposed to remedy the problem. The government's imposed remedies have been a complete failure in creating a more balanced playing field in the market. What's astonishing is that open source software has managed to gain so much ground, in so little time, in spite of the incredible roadblocks (sometimes illegal) placed in its path.

Microsoft managed to gain control over the market and then maintain that control illegally. They should be required to divulge their data formats and protocols, publicly, without royalties, to enable competitors to interoperate with and compete with them. Start with the Microsoft Office and disk storage formats.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Patent... SCO has no Patents!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 12:38 AM EST
<<
However, in the new status report, the DOJ finds after investigation that this
SCO license was taken in the context of developing a "broader
relationship" with Microsoft, citing MS's earlier paying SCO for a patent
and licensing rights.
>>

This can't be right. A patent search shows that SCO has no patents at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 12:48 AM EST
Here is a Microsoft article on some interestin g history between Microsoft and oldSCO. I wonder what else we will find on the history of Microsoft and oldSCO, newSCO, and Canopy?

---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 12:56 AM EST
The ironic thing is that Boise is right in the middle of both cases.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MicroScumbaggio Developer Network
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 01:30 AM EST
"[..]Microsoft founder Bill Gates admitted during remedy proceedings that Microsoft routinely makes knowingly inaccurate claims regarding its compliance with industry standards."

So, if I was a developer and I paid {insert large $ amount here} to subscribe to their MSDN (MS Developer Network), there's a good chance my software won't work according to described standards? That's a bitter pill to swallow considering how much developers pay to MS.

Can someone offer what a MSDN subscription runs nowadays? (Back in 1991 I paid about $400).

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: reuben on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 02:06 AM EST
How does the prohibition on "exclusive deals that could hurt
competitors" square with the fact that most laptop retailers will sell
laptops with MS Windows and only MS Windows? They seem to have arrangements
with MS under which the retailers must bundle a copy of Windows with every unit.
This is true of Dell, HP, Gateway, Sony, even IBM. Why is this still
permitted?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sharing? What sharing?
Authored by: OK on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 02:20 AM EST
"Such relationships will typically entail additional technology sharing or
product development arrangements, which should be seen as beneficial."

Sharing... g-r-r-r-right.... Every time I hear the word "sharing"
from Microsoft it makes me sober and fully woken up. (Just kidding - it only
wakes me up.)

But what I really don't like in this statement (quoted above) is a push given
at the end. Maybe I am simply in the bad mood and trying to be really picky on
the language but "should be seen as beneficial" implies several
different things:

a) MS disagrees with DOJ findings;
b) It [the deal] is not seen this way now;
c) It [the deal] is not seen this way by DOJ;
d) MS "suggests" that DOJ changes its point of view (the very entity
which is under judge ordered investigation is making a suggestion to the
investigator, how nice of them).

I hope whoever is reading that report is not in the same mood as I am.

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 02:21 AM EST
Perhaps Darl would be able to assist in the investigation. He's scheduled to
be speaking at Harvard on Febuary 4th:

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/p.cgi/speakers.html

If that sounds interesting, he won't be alone either:

"Mr. McBride will be speaking, and will participate in a Q&A session
along with Ryan Tibbitts, SCO's General Counsel, and Chris Sontag, SCO's
Senior VP and General Manager, SCOsource. This event will be broadcast live over
the web for those unable to attend in person."

-jr

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 02:31 AM EST
Why is it a surprise whenever we find Microsoft doing this?

I do very high-end consulting in the IT industry - and all you Microsoftistas listen up: we won't touch anyone who has ever entered into any of Microsoft's "Shared Source" licensing agreements.

Read the licenses - they can probably be found somewhere under he re. Nasty, nasty, nasty.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting connections between Microsoft and SCO: Xenix
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 02:38 AM EST
"Historically, Microsoft licensed the Unix code from AT&T in 1980 to make its own version of Unix: Xenix. At the time, the plan was that Xenix would be Microsoft's 16-bit operating system. Microsoft quickly found they couldn't do it on their own, and so started work with what was then a small Unix porting company, SCO. By 1983, SCO XENIX System V had arrived for 8086 and 8088 chips and both companies were marketing it."

Read more at http://www.practical -tech.com/business/b05212003.htm which includes a lot of references.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - Linus had to waste a week
Authored by: PM on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 02:54 AM EST

See Linus Torvalds Q&A from Australia.

According to this article Linus has had to waste a week doing preparation work so he can present individual E-mails fo discovery under subpoena if asked to do so. IBM would seem to have standing to stop SCO fishing among third parties.

This means that Darl, SCO and their lawyers have effectively put Linus under house arrest for a week when he has done nothing wrong. So much for all this about liberty and freedom under the US Constitution. This sort of abuse makes my blood boil.

If Linus's lawyers had seen what is in SCO's latest S3 amendments, they would probably have been justified in telling SCO where to stick its subpoena. These subpoenas were a publicity stunt only to shore up a sagging stock price. SCO's lawyers need to be held accountable for abusing their powers as officers of the Court in issuing these subpoenas to Linus and others. Unfortunately, Linus's and the other lawyers probably consider that their overall time is probably better spent elsewhere. I do not know if SCO had to make sworn statements to enable these subpoenas to be issued. My implications here are obvious.

I wonder if IBM's lawyers could suggest to Judge Wells on Friday that in addition to IBM's discovery continuing to be on hold, that the discovery etc sought in these subpoenas be put on hold as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hold it just a minute...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 03:05 AM EST
"In his e-mail to Gates, Kempin lays out a strategy for a unilateral strike against Intel for having the audacity to suggest to computer makers that Linux might be a choice for consumers. Kempin said he planned to 'stop any go-to-market activities with Intel (and) only work with their competitors.'
I seem to remember a couple of months ago that MS had stated that they were going to go with just the 64 bit extended x86 instruction set, and were not going to support the IA64 of the (pending) 64 bit Itanium or Yamhill (Intel) in future O/S releases. I though it made sence from an O/S provider in order to simplify the codebase, though they did multiple HALs in the NT4 series. I have no idea if this ever came to pass, or if MS is just delaying the 64 bit XP until they see where the market goes... but in light of that E-mail, it makes me start to wonder.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: The SEC *IS* LISTENING
Authored by: belzecue on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 03:05 AM EST
In case you are still wondering if the SEC is taking notice, be assured they
are. Below is a snip from the (presumably automated) email I got in reply to my
online complaint about SCO not including the Novell risks in their filings. I
included a link to PJ's Groklaw article -- as did, I assume, many others.
(Yes, I believe that SCO were recently contacted by the SEC, and that this
prompted their extensive revisions.)

-----

Thank you for contacting our office and taking the time to share your concerns
with us.

We welcome your comments because we keep a database of information about the
complaints and inquiries we receive.

This database allows us to track whether a troubling situation may be developing
about a particular issue, company, broker, stock, or other securities product.
The information you have provided will be reflected in our database.

If your e-mail raises issues that others at the SEC should see, we will pass it
along to them.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us.

Sincerely,
Merrily W. Katz
Investor Assistance Specialist
-
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ENFORCEMENT
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:31 AM
> To: OIE INTERNET ENFORCEMENT
> Subject: FW: enforcement complaint
>
[...]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft is allowed to bundle SFU
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 03:24 AM EST
From LinuxInnsider:

Micro soft's Oldroyd said Services for Unix would remain a separate product and there are no immediate plans to bundle it or build it into the Windows operating system even though Microsoft has the right to do so under a licensing agreement it signed with The SCO Group last year.

H@ns

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: ws on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 04:02 AM EST
Hm, since we're in conspiracy mode, here's what I found
using Google news:

http://www.idg.com.sg/idgwww.nsf/
unidlookup/76ADEAD3F07514F248256E200019DCB8?OpenDocument

What overtures did MS make to SUN?


Sun to Windows-certify x86 hardware
By Robert McMillan
IDG News Service, San Francisco Bureau
19-01-2004

In an apparent softening of its antipathy toward Microsoft
Corp., Sun Microsystems Inc. plans to begin certifying its
hardware to run the Windows operating system, a Sun
executive said on Thursday.

"We'll certify Windows," said Larry Singer, Sun's senior
vice president of global market strategy. "We're getting
off of our religious crusade and we're going to sell
people what they want to buy."

Though Sun has no plans to start selling Windows itself,
the certification will give Sun's customers new options
outside of running the Solaris and Linux operating systems
that Sun supports, Singer said. "If you have a Windows
license, you can load it on that machine, and it means
that Microsoft will take your support calls," said Singer.

Cheers,
WS

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: RSC on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 04:49 AM EST
PJ, I was wondering if you are a fan of John Grisham?

I personally love his books. I can almost see a Gene Hackmen, Wilford Brimley or
Denzel Wishington lurking somewhere in your shadow. While reading your lastest
posting, for some unknown reason, I started thinking of The Pelican Brief.

I can't wait for you to release the "Groklaw Book" on SCO, but have
you ever thought about witting a Novel (as in fiction)?

With your captivating writing style and your knowledge of how the US justice
system twists and turns, I think you could easily write a best seller or three.

Anyway, Just a thought..

Keep up the great work.

RSC.


---
----
An Australian who IS interested.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO has several license agreements with Microsoft
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 05:07 AM EST
SCO has several license agreements with Microsoft pursuant to which Microsoft
has provided software technology to SCO, including XENIX. Microsoft has rights
to terminate its licenses with SCO in the event of the acquisition of SCO by a
competitor of Microsoft, which may affect any such acquisition. SCO believes
that, if such an acquisition occurred and Microsoft canceled these licenses, SCO
could obtain alternative technology from other sources and could incorporate
such technology into SCO's products. However, the loss of any significant
third-party license, including the Microsoft licenses, or the inability to
license dditional technology as required, could have a materially adverse effect
on the Company's results of operations until such time as the Company could
replace such technology.

Cut from http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/851560/0000891618-96-003164.txt

a bit old, but may be still valid

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: halkun on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 05:49 AM EST
"Regarding the complaints concerning the inability for users to uninstall Windows Messenger from Windows XP, Microsoft has provided instructions on how to prevent Windows Messenger from running in Windows XP at the following link: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=302089."

Taking a quick glace, it just instructions to disable it the registry by telling it not to run any services on startup, the program itself, however isn't removed, and it's kind of tivial to reactivate it again via a simple script.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT : Novell expected to announce new partnerships at LinuxWorld
Authored by: PeteS on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 07:06 AM EST
LinuxWorld: Novell's debutante ball

From the article:

New partnerships with server makers Dell and Egenera will be among the displays of Novell's newly bought Linux status at the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo beginning Wednesday.

More for Darl & Co to consider.

---
Recursion: n. See Recursion

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 09:44 AM EST
maybe it has something to do with this?

http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5140237.html?tag=nefd_pop

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anti-Competitive Behavior
Authored by: Hyrion on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 09:55 AM EST
Sure wish I had clued in earlier concerning:
-May not participate in exclusive deals that could hurt
competitors.

Once upon a time not too long ago there was an Auto-DJ MPG
player that you could get a copy of for Linux. From what
I've seen of players, this one was very nice. You could
enter various pieces of info about the song (tempo, type,
author, emotion value, etc) and have the DJ select songs
based on that.

For example, say you had certain songs that you enjoyed
listening to while eating. On the song info, you could
identify those songs as "meal" songs. Have the auto-dj
only play those. Very nice with how flexible it was.

Last time I was in contact with the producers of Music
Match Jukebox I was informed they would no longer be
producing a version for Linux due to contractual
obligations. I wonder what the timing was for that
contract in relation to the court order.


---
There are many kinds of dreams. All can be reached if a person chooses. - RS

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS/DOJ settlement bans free software development
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 10:02 AM EST
I've tried to read the MCPP License Agreement, but I'm no lawyer. It seems to
me that it restricts anyone that signs it from working on any Linux software
relating to any of the protocols in the MCPP. How could the lawyers that are
supposed to be representing the US against a monopoly allow MS to specifically
ban any work on the only competitor that exists for them? What kind of
settlement is that?

From the Microsoft Communications Protocol Program(MCPP) at:
http://members.microsoft.com/consent/info/LicenseAgreement.aspx

6.4 Permitted Disclosures
(b) Licensee may disclose an Authorized Licensee Implementation in
source code form (but not provide a Copy of that source code) to a potential
customer or other third party for any lawful business purpose; provided that
such disclosure occurs only on Licensee’s premises under an NDA for On-Site
Review.

[ Reply to This | # ]

FSF to hold SCO conference
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 10:47 AM EST


I just posted the following at p2pnet in response to FSF to hold SCO conference. I plan to respond to this Groklaw post with a list of links for the details and sources. FSF's press release can be copied in toto. I hope PJ does it.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I hope that Moglen discusses all of SCO's copyright related risks at the January 21 conference. I would especially like to see the following risks discussed: 1. The risk that IBM's copyright claims against SCO will be upheld;
2. The risk of additional claims against SCO for Linux copyright violations;
3. The risk that Novell owns all the copyrights that SCO is claiming;
4. The risk that the judge will rule that leaving copyrights out its response to the December court order constituted contempt of court.
5. The risk that the SEC will prosecute SCO for failing to list some of the above risks in SCO's filings with the SEC.

All these risks have been discussed extensively at http://www.groklaw.net/index.php

If you have trouble finding details and sources, just post a query at Groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic - EMC buys VMWare (how close are EMC and MS)?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:17 AM EST
Is EMC Linux friendly? Or does this broad relationship that is quoted above,
between EMC and Microsoft, mean that in the end that MS would like to see EMC
make VMWare products in the future that will become less friendly with LINUX and
more friendly with Windows.

http://www.vmware.com/news/releases/emc.html

EMC to Acquire VMware, Advancing Convergence of Server and Storage
Virtualization

HOPKINTON, Mass. & PALO ALTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 15, 2003--EMC
Corporation (NYSE: EMC), the world leader in information storage and management,
today announced that it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Palo
Alto-based VMware, Inc., a rapidly growing, privately held software company and
the world leader in Intel-based virtual computing software, in a cash
transaction valued at approximately $635 million. The acquisition is subject to
customary closing conditions and regulatory approvals, and is expected to be
completed early in the first quarter of 2004.

The acquisition of VMware will play a key role in EMC's strategy to help
customers lower their costs and simplify their operations by deploying
virtualization technologies across their heterogeneous IT infrastructure to
create a single pool of available storage and computing resources. This
"Virtual Information Infrastructure" will enable organizations to
dynamically configure and reconfigure their compute and storage environments
with no downtime as their business needs change. EMC expects VMware's
leadership in server virtualization, together with EMC's innovation in storage
virtualization, will serve as a strong foundation for next-generation
information lifecycle management solutions.

VMware's technology enables multiple operating systems -- including Microsoft
Windows, Linux and NetWare -- to run simultaneously and independently on the
same Intel-based server or workstation and dynamically move live applications
across systems with no business disruption. These "virtual machines"
integrate seamlessly into existing physical infrastructures and management
frameworks, allowing users to see resources as if they were dedicated to them,
while administrators manage and optimize those resources globally across the
enterprise.

Joe Tucci, EMC President and CEO, said, "Customers want help simplifying
the management of their IT infrastructures. This is more than a storage
challenge. Until now, server and storage virtualization have existed as
disparate entities. Today, EMC is accelerating the convergence of these two
worlds."

"We've been working with the talented VMware team for some time
now," Tucci continued, "and we understand why they are considered
one of the hottest technology companies anywhere. With the resources and
commitment of EMC behind VMware's leading server virtualization technologies
and the partnerships that help bring these technologies to market, we look
forward to a prosperous future together."

Diane Greene, VMware President and CEO, said, "This combination is a
natural fit. Beyond the obvious product synergies, EMC's leadership in
advancing open standards and its relationships with the leading IT players will
foster ongoing innovation and industry-wide cooperation. VMware will continue
its deep relationships with the world's leading server and storage vendors as
well as ISVs and systems management providers to jointly develop useful
innovation for our customers."

VMware software is used today by thousands of companies worldwide to consolidate
underutilized servers, reduce server-provisioning time from weeks to tens of
seconds, dynamically move application workloads across servers and workstations
without service interruption, and eliminate downtime for hardware maintenance,
deployment, or migration.

Upon completion of the acquisition, EMC expects to take a charge of
approximately $15 to $20 million in the first quarter of 2004 for the value of
VMware's in-process research and development costs and other integration
expenses. Including the aforementioned charges, the transaction is expected to
be dilutive in the first quarter of 2004 by $0.01 per diluted share and is not
expected to impact EPS for the full 2004 fiscal year. EMC expects the addition
of VMware to be accretive to EPS by $0.01 in fiscal year 2005. Upon completion
of the acquisition, EMC plans to operate VMware as a software subsidiary of EMC,
headquartered in Palo Alto and led by Diane Greene, VMware's current President
and CEO. VMware will remain focused on developing, selling and servicing
VMware's products and solutions.

EMC President and CEO Joe Tucci, VMware President and CEO Diane Greene, and EMC
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Bill Teuber will discuss
the acquisition on a conference call for financial analysts, investors and the
news media at 5:00 p.m. EST, today. The call will be webcast with supporting
slides at http://www.emc.com/IR_Tech_presentation.



[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: k4_pacific on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:35 AM EST
Does anyone know who these nine licensees are?

SCO, EMC, ...

"The internet interprets proprietary software as damage and routes around
it."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why no RICO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 01:53 PM EST
Or whatever the appropriate tool is? All this DOJ v Microsoft is a big, empty,
meaningless dog-and-pony show. If the DOJ were truly interested in going after
illegal deeds, why not also go after all hardware manufacturers who signed
exclusive deals with Microsoft? MS would not be where they are today, if
companies like Dell, Gateway, Intel, Compaq, etc. were not spineless weenies who
refuse to offer customers meaningful choices, but prefer to bend over for
Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Link to Andrew Grygus analys of MS connection
Authored by: pbakker on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 02:05 PM EST
Recently Andrew Grygus wrote a detailed analysis of the SCO company entitled "SCO - Death Without Dignity", supported with links to sources so you can verify the information. A search on Groklaw shows that a few people including PJ have linked to www.aaxnet.com in the past.

In the section on the Microsoft angle Andrew makes several interesting links between SCO and Microsoft.

Further, On the same day Microsoft announced licensing Unix from SCO Group, SCO Group announced compatibility with Microsoft Active Directory. This really stretches coincidence way too far - SCO Group would need Microsoft's permission and close cooperation for this even though a third party developer was involved.

At the same time as the IBM suit, SCO shredded all evidence against Microsoft from the successful Caldera antitrust case (A13). For those that don't remember, Caldera (now SCO Group) sued Microsoft for various acts and unfair business practices against DR-DOS. Microsoft bought off the case for somewhere between $350 and $500 million to avoid copious evidence of their misbehavior becoming a matter of public record.

There is also good circumstantial evidence to believe that Microsoft is indirectly part of the $50 million Baystar investment.

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 02:13 PM EST
Thank you for pointing this out. I firmly believe that
Microsoft's hand is guiding this whole SCO farce and that
McBride is the "Red Headed Step Child" of Microsoft. The
goal is to cause a diversion long enough for Microsoft to
achieve complete lockin with LongHorn and its associated
products. History easily shows Microsofts meddling with
competitors directly.
Examples

Corel: Cowpland out Burney in Microsoft investment Linux
out dump Corel

AOL Time Warner: interesting backroom settlement Netscape/
Mozilla out. Internet Explorer in Case out.

Caldera/SCO Love out McBride in SCO sues IBM etc

RAV: Microsoft buys it and dumps Linux support.

I'm sure theres plenty more here. Please put them in the
glare of public scrutiny. Microsoft is the guiding hand
behind SCO. While we are concentrating on their intended
fallguy, SCO, Microsoft is clearly manipulating this and
other situations towards their longterm benefits and
goals. SCO will end up losing in the longterm no matter
which way their efforts go legally. That is exactly what
Microsoft wants here.
The efforts of Groklaw and all others involved should
never forget who the real culprit is, Microsoft. Don't let
them get away scott free AGAIN!

[ Reply to This | # ]

DOJ Mentions SCO in Report on MS Compliance Efforts
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 03:02 PM EST
Besides, the DOJ proving that Microsoft is in bed with SCO. That's one nail in
the dead-man's box. I also think the Anti-trust law suite agreement so far,
mean that Microsoft will have to sue Dell, and all others computer manufacturers
for advertising the phases, like:

"Dell recommends Microsoft® Windows® XP"

I hope so, may be then Dell and others will realize that a manufacturer should
NEVER recommend an operating system or applications with asking the buyer
first.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Organized Crime Laws
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 04:29 PM EST
Its feeling more and more we should hit SCO and M$ with organized crime statues.
Its becoming obvious MS is using SCO to do its dirty work, things its already
been convicted of. If we can prove that SCO has colluided with MS to preform
work for hire which MS was legally barred from cant we attach SCO to the MS
case, and try them on violiations of the settelment? As for Mass keeping the
investigation open, the states should have planned to do this. None of the
states should have signed on. Each keeping the investigation open, and then each
one takes MS to trial when a something ugly (intel email) comes out. That way we
can keep the littigation ball rolling and avoid these scoping issues.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software giant threatens mikerowesoft
Authored by: jwrl on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 05:06 PM EST
news.zdnet.co.uk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software giant threatens mikerowesoft
Authored by: jwrl on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 05:17 PM EST
Arrg.... Here is the link I can't seem to get anchors to work on this site.


http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39119181,00.htm

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO bought the license in exchange for $MS million of fees
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 08:03 PM EST
nuff said

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )