|
The Microsoft Minnesota Antitrust Trial |
|
Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 03:58 PM EST
|
Microsoft is on trial in Minnesota regarding overcharging for Windows and the Word and Excel programs. Because of the leaked Halloween X memo, and the subsequent revelation that Microsoft was instrumental in finding funding for SCO, something I simply couldn't believe until BayStar admitted it, it's obvious Groklaw needs to pay more attention to the Microsoft part of the SCO story.
For that reason, I will be covering the Minnesota trial, Gordon, et al. v. Microsoft (Court File No. MC 00-5994), as well as the Lindows situation, as I am able. You can help. It seems that the Fourth Judicial District Court is quite enlightened about the Internet, and they are making all the exhibits available on their website. The plaintiff's have a website too, where you can find the Complaint and a FAQ.
Here's what their website says their policy will be: "Opening arguments began on Monday, March 15, 2004. All electronic trial exhibits will be available on this website the day after they are admitted and published to the jury during the course of the trial, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. "All transcript requests should be addressed to Paradigm Reporting (612) 339-0545 or 1-800-545-9668. Please be advised that the Court does not provide free copies of transcripts.
"Normal hours for the trial are 9:00 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Thursday. The courtroom is C1556. The public is welcome as space permits.
"The Court has implemented a case information line to provide daily updates of this case's status. Call (612) 348-2363 after 4:30 pm to listen to a recorded message."
Some exhibits are already available, unfortunately as TIFFs instead of PDFs. If the court has a suggeston box, I would like to request PDFs. Here's the page for Plaintiff's exhibits. And here is Microsoft's exhibits page. There is some audio from the opening day available too, from Minnesota Public Radio, for those who use Real Player. Some local coverage in the Duluth Superior informs us that the judge is District Judge Bruce A. Peterson. The article says the judge told the jurors on opening day that the case differs from the federal antitrust case in that it is about certain products and covers a slightly different time period. The plaintiffs' website says: "If you purchased, in Minnesota, Microsoft Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal computer on which this software was already installed, from May 18, 1994 through December 15, 2001, you may be affected by a class action lawsuit."
More details from MPR: "Inside the courtroom, Grossman's law partner, Eugene Crew [representing the plaintiffs], offered a spectacularly detailed opening statement. On a giant screen jurors saw dozens of internal memos from Microsoft, Intel and other technology companies. Clips from video depositions gave a hint of the hours of such tape that are to come, including a deposition from Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates originally recorded for the federal case. Gates is expected to testify in person in Minneapolis.
"Crew tried to put the case in terms familiar to the Minnesota jurors. He asked them to consider Xcel Energy, their sole energy provider. Now imagine, he said, that Xcel gets into the business of making toasters. And every time another toaster-maker built a toaster that could be plugged into the power outlet in your home, Xcel changed the shape of the outlet so that only their toasters would work. "This, Crew said, is much like the charges of technical sabotage against Microsoft: That deliberate booby traps in Microsoft software kept competitors' products from functioning correctly." Suburban Herald News has quite a bit of detail, including the news that Microsoft's opening statement was an apology for past behavior: "Microsoft Corp. apologized to jurors for its past anticompetitive practices during opening statements Wednesday in a case alleging the company's antitrust violations include word processing and spreadsheet software.
"'Yes, we acknowledge that and we apologize for it,' said David Tulchin, a Microsoft attorney. 'The conduct involved competition that went over the line. The question for you is whether or not consumers were overcharged.'" The question SCO watchers have is: Is the anticompetitive behavior in the past? Or is it continuing and this time against GNU/Linux? What grabbed my attention is a detail in this article, that the plaintiffs opened by testimony about the DR DOS case: "The plaintiffs began their case on Tuesday with videotaped testimony from former Microsoft executive Phil Barrett, who talked about a memo from Gates directing software engineers to find a way for Windows to tell whether the underlying operating system was Microsoft's or a competitor's. Early versions of Windows required a DOS operating system, typically purchased separately. "Testimony from Barrett outlined during opening statements said Microsoft sought a way to have Windows warn users that it might not be compatible with non-compatible operating systems. "Barrett said in the May 17, 2002, testimony that Microsoft's MS-DOS was nearly identical to the competitor, DR-DOS. It countered Microsoft's efforts to portray DR-DOS as incompatible with Windows. 'DR-DOS was a pretty darn good clone of MS-DOS,' he said. 'It was compatible.' "Barrett gave similar testimony when DR-DOS owner Caldera sued Microsoft. That case was settled in 2000. "Tulchin told jurors that Barrett now works for Microsoft competitor RealNetworks Inc. And he said several computer makers chose MS-DOS over DR-DOS because there was no customer demand for DR-DOS." Ah, Microsoft. Some things never change, I see. Some of the exhibits already available are about this deliberate and totally unnecessary "warning" to users of DR DOS so they would imagine something was wrong with their software. I can't help but wonder if the MS-proposed DRM isn't just another way to make sure you only use their products. Evidently, despite Canopy Group successfully petitioning the court to let it destroy all the DR DOS evidence, some of it survives, and they have it in Minnesota. You might find the Caldera Statement of Facts useful information, because it lays out specific tricks Microsoft used against DR DOS, including the bogus warning. Here's just a small part of what it says they did: "FUD: Breaking Windows "195. FUD -- and specifically, claims that DR DOS would actually cause Windows to break -- became the focus of an intense Microsoft attack following the DRI/Novell merger announcement. On November 7, 1991, David Cole summarized the plan, and the need for appropriate PR 'spin': "There is an obvious conflict quickly approaching us, and I get the feeling we are not very prepared PR wise. The conflict is Windows 3.1 and DR-DOS. Apparently DRI is quite aware of our plans to not test with DR-DOS, our plan to not let them enter the Win 3.1 beta program, and our plan to detect the presence of MS-DOS and warn the user they are on an un-tested OS if MS-DOS is not detected. "Exhibit 238 "In addition, Microsoft also made several code changes to Windows 3.1 to ensure that DR DOS 6.0 would not run with either betas or the final release version of Windows 3.1. See infra 262-264. "196. To block out DR DOS, Microsoft began explicitly informing OEMs that Microsoft 'would guarantee that Windows would not work with DR DOS, and that if they licensed DR DOS they would be making a vital mistake in the marketplace having a product that wouldn't work with Windows.' Dixon Depo. at 337; see Reichel Depo. at 61-62, 101. . . . "Exhibit 158 "210. Microsoft knew that it faced a dilemma: Windows and DR DOS did not compete, and thus no legitimate pro-competitive reasons existed to withhold the beta. Discussions among the Microsoft executive staff led to a most Orwellian resolution. On August 15, 1991, Silverberg reported to his development team dealing with the beta blacklist issue: "We recently decided to start referring to Windows as an operating system in our communications, not a graphical environment or user interface for dos. we should be consistent in the new usage. thanks. "Exhibit 164 "Microsoft thus began propagating the fiction that continues to this day: Windows and DR DOS somehow competed, and so it was 'okay' to exclude DRI from the beta test cycle.(25) "211. When beta testers called in with questions concerning the interoperability of Windows 3.1 and DR DOS, they were explicitly informed that Microsoft did not want Windows to work with DR DOS. On October 31, 1991, Andy Hill told his Windows 3.1 beta staff: "For beta testers that report problems w/ DR DOS and 3.1: "DR-DOS is an untested and therefore unsupported operating system. MS-DOS (or OEM versions of it) is required for Windows. Using DR-DOS with Microsoft Windows is at the sole risk of the user. We don't support it." It's no wonder these proprietary dudes can't grok the FOSS concept of community and sharing knowledge. They think like generals in a war. But, as ugly as it is, and it is, we probably need to pay attention. There will likely be information that involves GNU/Linux that will show up in Minnesota. There was a memo that the judge in the federal antitrust trial wouldn't allow in (presented too late, she ruled), that showed that Linux was on their radar back in 2000: "In the August 2000 e-mail, Microsoft vice president Joachim Kempin complained that chipmaker Intel was contacting computer makers 'who are not (Microsoft) friendly in the first place and ... encouraging them to go to Linux,' a free operating system that competes with Microsoft's Windows. "Kempin wrote to Gates that Kempin planned to 'stop any go-to-market activities with Intel (and) only work with their competitors.' Kempin also suggested that Microsoft withhold technical information from computer makers, an issue brought up by the states.
"'I would further try to restrict source code deliveries where possible and be less gracious when interpreting agreements — again without being obvious about it,' he wrote."
Another reason to pay attention is that there may be a class action lawsuit someday against Microsoft regarding anticompetitive behavior against GNU/Linux. I'm beginning to suspect that if they keep supporting SCO, it's almost inevitable.
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 03:59 PM EST |
Please record my mistakes for posterity here, so I can find them quickly.
Thank you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not a correction, but a useful url to the plaintiffs website - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 07:47 PM EST
- I've transcribed Plaintiff's Ex. 35, 35A, 109, 136, 286 - Authored by: LvilleDebugger on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 08:55 PM EST
- Plaintiff's 35 35A 109 136 286 373 461 462 638 sent to PJ as html - Authored by: LvilleDebugger on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 09:42 PM EST
- Finished Plaintiff's Ex. 709 805 841 - Authored by: LvilleDebugger on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 01:19 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 4546A - Authored by: LvilleDebugger on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 01:39 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 4407 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 04:26 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 4178 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 04:30 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 3247 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 04:52 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 1513 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 05:03 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 1397 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 05:32 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 1243 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 05:55 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 1146 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 06:27 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 1133 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 06:43 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 1130 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 07:17 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 1077 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 07:28 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 1048 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 07:52 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 990 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 08:24 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 986 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 08:56 AM EST
- Thanks to Cyp we also have Plaintiff's Exhibit 985 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 09:30 AM EST
- Corrections Here Please - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 12:15 AM EST
- Corrections Here Please - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 01:39 AM EST
|
Authored by: NZheretic on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 04:07 PM EST |
If you have not read it yet...
An open letter to antitrust,
competition, consumer and trade practice monitoring agency officials
worldwide. http://
itheresies.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_itheresies_archive.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 04:10 PM EST |
I wonder if it is just a coincidence MS executives involvement in the Bystar
PIPE investment and the destruction of documents SCO had in storage pertaining
the Caldera-DRDOS and MS lawsuit. Why was SCO so adamant about destroying those
documents even when Sun was willing to pay for the storage expenses. I smell
dead rat![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 04:41 PM EST |
I remember that Win3.1 did not work on a stock DR-DOS 6.0 - I had to get a
"patch disk" for DR-DOS to run Windows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Warning? - Authored by: AdamBaker on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 04:50 PM EST
- AARD - Authored by: red floyd on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 07:29 PM EST
- Warning? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 02:05 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 04:42 PM EST |
I used the Google search terms:
"tiff to pdf" linux
and there were 488 hits.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- tiff to pdf - Authored by: ghynes on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 04:44 PM EST
- tiff to pdf - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 04:45 PM EST
- pdf is tiff - Authored by: kh on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 06:44 PM EST
- tiff to pdf - Authored by: jbb on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 07:33 PM EST
- tiff to pdf - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 11:31 PM EST
- tiff to pdf - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 11:36 PM EST
|
Authored by: Sander on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 04:48 PM EST |
DR-DOS isn't that the operating system of SCO that "contains code,
structure, sequence and/or organization from Microsoft's proprietary DOS code in
violation of their copyrights" ?
I wonder how many ABI files SCO violated with OS. I think someone should ask
Darrel, he know that kind of stuff.
---
I tried to ping SCO's IP in Linux, but it returned no route to host ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- DR-DOS - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 04:53 PM EST
- DR-DOS - Authored by: phrostie on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 05:12 PM EST
- DR-DOS - Authored by: Sander on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 05:45 PM EST
- DR-DOS - Authored by: Sander on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 05:47 PM EST
- DR-DOS - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 07:29 PM EST
- DR-DOS - Authored by: minkwe on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 03:48 AM EST
- DR-DOS - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 07:51 PM EST
- DR-DOS - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 11:47 PM EST
- DR-DOS - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 02:08 AM EST
- DR-DOS - Authored by: akStan on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 06:03 AM EST
- DR-DOS - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 12:25 PM EST
|
Authored by: lpletch on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 04:50 PM EST |
There are utilities that run on Linux to convert nearly anything displayable to
Post Script. Post Script is easily converted to PDF with ps2pdf.
tiff2ps
http://www.libtiff.org/man/tiff2ps.1.html
ps2pdf
http://www.rt.com/man/ps2pdf.1.html
Example:
tiff2ps -a PLEX0035_0001.TIF > PLEX0035_0001.ps
ps2pdf PLEX0035_0001.ps > PLEX0035_0001.TIF.pdf
---
lpletch@adelphia.net[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- TIFF / PDF - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 05:19 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 04:53 PM EST |
In PJ's item above:
"I can't help but wonder if the MS-proposed DRM isn't just another way to
make sure you only use their products."
Richard Stallman has written about this at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
Also a long, thoughtful article with some interesting views on MS's plans for
Palladium/DRM
http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit029.html#mspath
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 04:56 PM EST |
At the risk of it being redundant due to the existence of OCR software, here's a
transcription of
http://www.courts.state.mn.us/districts/fourth/MicrosoftTrial/Plaintiff/PLEX4546
_A_0001.tif (last file there).
(Can't properly see the difference between i, I and I in the document, would
almost think it was scanned by a scanner from 1991, terrible scan...)
--------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
4546A
Gordonw(?) MbioooH(??)
Bruce Neiminen
From: bradc
To: galld; mmerker; rond
Cc: bradc; dosmktg
Subject: Key Competitive Info
Date: Thursday, May 09, 1991 11:47AM
Date: Thu May 09 11:42:49 PDT 1991
As an FYI/reminder, there are two key competitive Info docs that need to
go to the field/onto SmartPages. Both of these docs are on
\pyrexpublic. They are in dosmktgsales.inf.
Document #1 - OEM.DOC
------------
Explains how to sell the MS-DOS 5 Upgrade when you encounter an OEM also
selling a DOS Upgrade. It focuses alot on the advantages of our product
over the IBM product
Document #2 - Drdos.doc
--------------
Summarizes the key advantages of MS-DOS 5 and the MS-DOS 5 Upgrade
versus Dr.DOS. We are doing further research on this and will have
even more data soon.
Please work with richf to get these to the people out there that need
them...
thanks for all your help
Bruce Neiminen
From: bradc
To: bradsl (bradsi?); steveb
Cc: bradc; joachimk; sergiop
Subject: RE: DRI
Date: Sunday, May 12, 1991 10:38AM
Date: Sat May 11 22:45:38 PDT 1991
consider it done.
>From steveb Tue May 14 19:02:58 1991
To: bradc bradsl (bradsi?)
Cc: joadhimk
Subject: DRI
X 567195
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 43
EXH 8 DATE 5/17/02
WITNESS Barrett
MARY W. MILLER
-----------------------------------------
-Cyp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 05:14 PM EST |
A dissassembly of it was done in 1993 for the "prestigious"
DrDobbs
journal.
"Examining the Windows AARD Detection Code" by
Andrew Schulman
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 05:18 PM EST |
Steve Balmer popped by Can>Win in Toronto on Feb 26. Here's some quotes from
his talk:-
(*** WARNING - People prone to hypertension should not read any further ***)
"Today we're better than the other guy" referring to Microsoft
security. He also said that Microsoft security will be a "strategic
advantage for them within 2 to 5 years. DRM and Palladium anyone?
"It's not a strategic advantage for us today because the theory is
everybody attacks us and nobody attacks the other guy, so the other guy must be
okay. It's not that every other system out there is so unkackable; it's just
they aren't that popular."
"We're working on shield and quarantine technology that provides a way to
determine whether a machine is clean enough to run on a network..." Think a
Linux box will pass?
He also mentioned that IT managers need to make sure they have a security plan
in place. I'm guessing that if they can get off the MS security patch update
gerbil wheel, they might do that. It could be they'll change to a real operating
system with decent security:- Linux.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lpletch on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 05:24 PM EST |
"Agencies can now get free advice from the new Government Open Source Advisory
Committee, which includes some of open-source software’s most influential
leaders. "
Government Computer
News--- lpletch@adelphia.net [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lpletch on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 05:28 PM EST |
"Massachusetts' new software repository is designed to let government agencies
make more efficient use of open-source software."
InformationWeek--- lpletch@adelphia.net [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sinan on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 05:53 PM EST |
Following was posted at yahoo.
The other public company with Yarro as Chairman is Altiris
(ATRS). SEC filing for Altiris shows a 50 Million dolar spike in sales in Q3,
2003 (20 to 69),
Source:
eol.finsys.comedgar_conv_html2004 2 2 001193125-04-012934.html
Altiris is featured in a late 2003 Microsoft whitepaper for implementing .Net.
Royal Bank Canada (RBC) brokers has an inexplicable strong buy rating on ATRS,
despite the pending loss of HP as a major customer.
RBC is a coinvestor in the SCO PIPE deal.
Is it possible the some of the M$ guarantee to Yarro, et.al. is hidden in
software sales to Altiris ?
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=113397
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 05:57 PM EST |
In the article you say:
"Another reason to pay attention is that there may be a class action
lawsuit someday against Microsoft regarding anticompetitive behavior against
GNU/Linux. I'm beginning to suspect that if they keep supporting SCO, it's
almost
inevitable."
In August of 2003 I contacted both SuSE and Red Hat about the possibility of
starting a Linux class action suite against SCO. SuSE ignored me. I had an
email correspondence with Red Hat and a Red Hat lawyer told me this:
"Although the fund we have established is intended as a defensive fund upon
which open source companies that are sued can call, the class action is
intriguing. My only concern, off the top of my head, is that it may be difficult
to certify the class."
I asked what "certify the class" meant and got this explanation:
"It's more a question of whether the U.S. courts would
recognize some group of Linux developers/distributors/end users as a
recognizable class with sufficient commonality."
So I would like to ask any lawyers reading this post the following question:
If we decide to sue either Microsoft or SCO in a class action suite what would
we have to do to be "a recognizable class with sufficient
commonality."
---------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 06:25 PM EST |
I've heard that one reason MS wants to hang on to so much cash is that they need
huge reserves to cover possible fines/penalties/judgements against them.
If this is so, I'd say Microsoft's agressive behaviour is counterproductive:
Sure, they make tons of money, but they can't give it out as dividends because
their aggressive behaviour has gotten them in so much legal trouble. What's in
it for the investor?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 06:57 PM EST |
A number of articles have mentioned that 16 similar state suits have been
dismissed. From what I recall, the problem is that the laws in these states
allow only the purchaser to sue. In the case of computers with Windows
pre-loaded, which is how most people buy it, it is the OEM that would be allowed
to sue, and of course, they have no motivation to do so.
I guess the laws in Minnesota are different. However, even if they win, it is
only $425 million, which is nothing to microsoft. I wonder why we haven't been
seeing suits likes this in europe, as I understand the laws are much more
consumer-friendly (I expect there would be no lawsuits in Asia as so much of the
software is pirated.) And how about a ruling that sets future prices at a
reasonable level?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 07:15 PM EST |
So, as an independent consultant my contracts read work-for-hire... all rights
to my (creative) work transfer to the folks paying the bills. I can imagine a
time in the distant pre-web past when court reporters earned a living off
"their" dead-tree transcripts, a page at a time. How else could they
get money from lawyers (I wonder)?
However, today it seams to me that the civil organization hiring the court
reporter / transcriber should pay for labor, and on behalf of us (I am a citizen
of MN), own the court created content in order to make OUR records of OUR courts
available FREELY to all of US.
Could someone please explain to me why court transcripts are not government (aka
peoples) property?...and how to change that?
Is it they way everywhere in the good old USA, what about other countries?
thanks - tce (currently aNon)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 07:49 PM EST |
http://people.opera.com/howcome/2003/2/msn/
This would probably be good anti-trust material in that regard.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pscottdv on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 08:21 PM EST |
Some exhibits are already available, unfortunately as TIFFs instead
of PDFs. If the court has a suggeston box, I would like to request
PDFs.
Shame on you, PJ, for prefering a proprietary format to
an unproprietary one. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 08:30 PM EST |
Is " being instrumental in finding funding " worse then "
funding" ?
Go PJ !!
You're doing just fine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Greg on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 09:13 PM EST |
Anyone intersted in searching the
internet and archives to find the
link between Microsoft and BayStar?
They have all the principals on the
main website and all the organizations
that these people have represented can
be shown through a basic Google search.
Have started some searches.
The Principals are VERY clean. Which is
really strange. Limited hits and limited
information on who they worked for.
Strange since they have made over 210 investments
that have totaled over 1.5Billion which means
that they may have over 10Billion in assets.
(About 10x their investments if they are good.)
The overall objective is to find one of the following:
1) Principals/investors worked directly for Microsoft
2) Principals/investors worked for a company that
directly profits from working with Microsoft
3) Princpals/investors have invested in Microsoft stock directly
4) Principal/investors have invested in Microsoft stock indirectly
5) Principal/investors are financial advisors or managers of Microsoft groups or
individuals
Other connections?
It would seem that an investment of $50 Million
would be interesting if there was or is a direct
business plan that would provide a multiple of
10 to 40 that would make SCO very wealthy.
But the fact is that the overall penetration into
the market place of Linux does not make financial
sense even if there is a case.
The return on $50 Million for SCO would require
that SCO value the investment to $500 Million or
to $2 Billion.
It is true that VCs invest in long shots. But this
from the surfice indicates that there is a viable
business model being created by BayStar.
Or the efforts that SCO will undertake will benefit
other investments that Baystar has made.
Or the principals/investors of BayStar have a large
stake in other companies that will win or loose based
on the success of Linux.
Then it may be that BayStar is not happy with
the new Open Source business model. And they are
attempting to do what they can to side track the issue.
Any additonal information on the link between
BayStar and Microsoft other than "All we did
was introduce BayStar to SCO."
Why did they introduce BayStar to SCO?
What was the conversations leading up to that introduction?
Maybe the conversatons are not our business.
But the intention of the investment is our business.
Was the introduction intended to make BayStar lots of money?
Was the introduction based on good business thinking?
I have a VERY hard time thinking the intentions
were along the line of:
<RING RING RING>
<BAYSTAR ANSWERS>
Baystar this is Microsoft. I was in town for
a strategy meeting last week and your name came up.
We were talking about how many VC companies need
to have a better model on business investments.
And your name came up out of the blue.
We thought that you guys could make a killing
giving $50 million to SCO.
You would get 10x or 40x your investment in
four (4) years. SCO has a great solid business
plan and they are going to take off.
We would do it, but we have to ship Longhorn
in four (4) years and really need to focus
on that for now.
Yes I know that Lunix and Longhorn will compete
in four (4) years.
Yes I know that Lunix will gain most of the
market share in four (4) years.
But that is why we Microsoft think that you
BarStar should do business with SCO.
It would be a winning combination for your
investment group.
How much? Well $50 million should take them
through most of the litigation and get us
to about when Longhorn will go to market.
Your welcome! And good luck with SCO.
<Handup>
Sorry... Does not make sense...
What is the connection and why did BayStar choose to invest?
Greg[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: twhlai on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 09:18 PM EST |
The Associated Press reported that the Nebraska Supreme Court revived a class
action lawsuit against Microsoft. The suit alleges that Microsoft violated
Nebraska's consumer protection laws.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 11:51 PM EST |
I understand that Microsoft is a party to 50 lawsuits. We must be selective
about what Microsoft trials we are going to follow, or we'll be overwhelmed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 12:05 AM EST |
I have to be somewhat circumspect here, as I have not talked to my source
recently, and I don't know what his response would be to my posting this on
Groklaw. If there is interest I'll be happy make contact and see if he is
willing to make a public statement.
When Microsoft was running the Beta tests for Windows 95 I was dealing with a
compiler manufacturer. The operation was relatively small compared to Microsoft,
but they made some really nice compilers for the MS-DOS. Compilers that were in
my opinion far better than what Microsoft was selling.
I had contacted this company about a programming problem, and by accident got
connected with one of the executives instead of support!
The executive in question was a programmer, knew the answer I was looking for
(and yes, it was in the manual, don't ask me why I couldn't find it), and was
very helpfull. As I was about to hang up I asked if they had a Windows 95
version of the compiler coming out (this was 2 months before the release of
Windows 95 - pirated versions of the Beta had just started to surface on the
net). His response was that they had tried to sign up for the Beta program, but
Microsoft didn't seem to want them involved. His contact at Microsoft had
finally told them that they would have copies shortly, after nearly a year of
asking.
Just think - two months before Windows 95 is released, and a compiler
manufacturer can't get a copy of the OS? Needless to say their product was not
ready at the Windows 95 launch.
Curiously enough Microsoft's compilers were ready at the launch.
As I said, I still have contact info, and could pursue this information further
if there is interest.
---
Wayne
telnet hatter.twgs.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 12:45 AM EST |
From the Yahoo SCOX message
board:
Sales jump at Altiris Q3 2003
by: stats_for_all
03/20/04 05:11 pm
Msg: 113397 of 113443
The other public
company with Yarro as Chairman is Altiris
(ATRS). SEC filing for Altiris shows a 50 Million dolar spike in sales in Q3,
2003 (20 to 69).
Altiris is featured in a late 2003 Microsoft whitepaper for
implementing .Net.
Royal Bank Canada (RBC) brokers has an inexplicable strong
buy rating on ATRS, despite the pending loss of HP as a major customer.
RBC is a
coinvestor in the SCO PIPE deal.
Is it possible the some of the M$ guarantee
to Yarro, et.al. is hidden in software sales to Altiris ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 03:02 AM EST |
There is an opinion on Open Systems and Proprietary Systems that I want to
share, it may be a bit off topic but I think that it could help others.
Posting it as an additional post because is somewhat large.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 04:13 AM EST |
Here's an
interest
ing article in the San Jose Mercury News regarding Microsoft's woes.
Rent-a-Rob had some interesting words:
"Analysts wonder what the
next big revenue stream will be for a company whose next major software launch
may be two years away -- and which has turned considerable attention to shoring
up the security of its existing products.
`The company has a
substantial amount of distraction, probably more distraction than they've ever
had in their history,'' said Rob Enderle, principal analyst with The Enderle
Group.
[..] Still, facing antitrust allegations on several continents
is taking time and attention from the company's top executives, Enderle
said."
Taking time and attention away from what? "War
meetings" to plan more anti-competitive behavior? All I can say is keep
paddling furiously Rob; someday you just might make it to shore.
I
posted a comment on a (Linux) newsite about 1 year ago, and at the end of my
message I *highly* recommended everyone sell their Microsoft stock while it was
nice and fat - because I believed the coming Linux storm was going to hurt MS's
revenue stream in a major way. That portion of my comment was edited out
because it may have been to extreme for the site owners.
This article,
released today, states that analysts are finally getting around to wondering
what MS's next big revenue stream will be.
I have one question: what
took them so long to come to this realization? (also, would my comment have been
edited today given what we now know about MS?)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: globularity on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 04:28 AM EST |
Microsoft would definitely be one to start digging into, I was reading an old
document on newsforge (halloween 1)
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.html and this section stood out.
o Linux = Best of Breed UNIX.
Linux outperforms many other UNIX's in most major performance
category (networking, disk I/O, process ctx switch, etc.). To grow their
featurebase, Linux has also liberally stolen features of other UNIX's (shell
features, file systems, graphics, CPU ports)
o Only Unix OS to gain market share.
Linux is on track to eventually own the x86 UNIX market and has been
the only UNIX version to gain net Server OS market share in recent years. I
believe that Linux -- moreso than NT -- will be the biggest threat to SCO in the
near future.
Now it wouldn't take any M$ exec reading this to come up with the idea dropping
hints to SCO. Namely because of the allegation of stolen UNIX code. That would
explain SCO's inability to provide evidence, yet they were quite happy to spend
plenty on lawyers. Any other company would have researched the source first then
employed the lawyers which would have meant they would have no problem being
specific. That is unless someone like M$ came up with the allegation and Darl et
al are either dumb beyond belief or well paid pawns.
Just my $0.02
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: akStan on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 06:13 AM EST |
Were early CP/M and BASIC public domain ?
Sol Libes, The Gary Kildall Legacy
© 1995, Amateur Computer Group of New Jersey
http://www.cadigital.com/kildall.htm
"Gordon Eubanks, one of Gary's students, created a BASIC interpreter for
the system. Early versions of CP/M and the BASIC interpreter were in the public
domain since it had been created at a publicly funded institution. Copies found
their way to some other government contractors and agencies."
Rob Landley "Macrosoft The Bear Rebuttal"
The Motley Fool April, 2000
http://www.fool.com/duelingfools/2000/duelingfools00041904.htm
"Their first ever product, BASIC, was an implementation of an existing
public domain technology."
CP/M collection is back online with an Open Source licence
Tina Gasperson The Register 26/11/2001
http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/23010.html
"When CP/M enthusiast Tim Olmstead died from cancer on September 11 this
year, the Unofficial CP/M Web site he had been maintaining had to be taken down
because of licensing issues with the software collection. Now, Lineo has granted
unrestricted use of the technology and the site is back up."
---
Stan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 07:21 AM EST |
Their "punishment" will probably be to give out Microsoft vouchers, so
people can buy only more monopoly product, just at a slight discount.
Lets hope there is a serious damages award, to recompense people for years of
conning and overcharging customers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lpbbear on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 12:01 PM EST |
This is a bit OT but I remember something that struck me
as strange back in the early Netscape vs. IE days.
I worked for a computer sales and service firm that was
heavily promoting NT 4.0. In order to become more familiar
with the product, I converted my Win95 (may have been 98,
I can't remember for sure) peer to peer network to one
using NT 4.0 as a file and print server. I began to have
very wierd problems with printing from Netscape when
printing through the NT 4.0 print server. If I shared the
printer through a WIn95 system I had no problems at all.
If I printed through the NT 4.0 server using IE I again
had no problems. I only had problems printing with
Netscape which was my preferred web browser. I saw the
same kinds of problems at customers sites with printing,
NT 4.0 and Netscape.
The funny thing about this was that this actually helped
push me toward using Linux as a file and print server.
After becoming totally frustrated with the hairball that
is NT 4.0, I setup a Linux server that worked perfectly.
In fact it worked so well it had an uptime of 1 year and 6
months before I became bored with it and upgraded it to
another version of Linux where I again saw another year of
uptime. Anyway I was always suspicious of how NT 4.0 acted
with Netscape printing. Very strange as in too strange to
be a coincidence.
On another note I found this unusual reference about DrDos
on the aaxnet site and this may be one of the reasons the
DrDos trial transcripts were trashed before the current
SCO mess.
http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html
"1997 - Caldera sues Microsoft - being tried now. When
Microsoft and IBM brought out DOS, Digital Research sued,
claiming DOS included copyrighted Digital Research code.
DR's Gary Kildall was able, using a secret code, to pop up
a DR copyright notice on the PC IBM had brought to court.
Case won.
Aside from monetary damages, DR won the right to clone
DOS, which they eventually did with DR-DOS. Microsoft,
unwilling to tolerate the slightest crack in their
monopoly, fought DR-DOS with every means at their
disposal, including unethical and probably illegal means.
Caldera, current owner of Digital Research's products, has
sued over the illegal part. The judge on the case
considers Caldera's case so strong he has allowed them to
expand it."
Doing a search on Google for "qdos+Kildall+trial
+Microsoft" will turn up this and other interesting
information.
Keep up the good work Pj. :)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 12:21 PM EST |
This may be a bit off topic but I think that the Microsoft lawsuit bonanza and
the possibly pending nasty tactics against Linux (which will almost certainly
involve software patents) will bring down software patents.
I use to think that the case to defeat software patents would be: M$ vs <some
litigious company> where M$ is the defendent but I'm beginning to think the
case will be: United States vs <some litigous M$ puppet company>. This
given that the US Federal Government is the biggest user of opensource and the
juiciest target. Recent news of SCO's actions seem to suggest that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 01:33 PM EST |
What would be good is if the insider who gave us Halloween X (the letter showing
the MS/SCO financial connection, for those who don't know what I'm talking
about) was to file a False Claims Act against Canopy (and maybe Microsoft). It's
hard for an outsider to bring a claim, but if an outsider brought that claim
since SCO (a Canopy company with Darcy Mott on the BoD and one of the heads of
Canopy) is threatening the client (the Department of Energy LLNL) of Linux
Networx (another Canopy company with Darcy Mott on the BoD) for buying LNs
products. Some brave insider could potentially gain a rather sizeable reward for
bringing that claim and could stand to be very rich if they were able to provide
proof that Microsoft was actively taking part. All potential whistleblowers
should be aware that as part of the False Claims Act the whistleblower gets
15-30% of the judgment/settlement, which could be a rather hefty amount.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 02:22 PM EST |
Cringely has a couple of interesting articles regarding another case in which
Microsoft is involved:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040212.html
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040311.html
In the latter story, there's a bit towards the end about Microsoft possibly
destroying emails relevant to this case, and possibly others.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 02:50 PM EST |
Forgive my multiple main posts, but here's an
article in the Salt Lake Tribune (Bob Mims) that has an interesting
observation:
"Another potential complication for the
company, should its stock continue to slide, involves the $50 million it
obtained from BayStar Capital last October. The San Francisco-based hedge fund
apparently has a redemption clause that might kick in if SCO stock dips
below $6.75 and stays there for 20 consecutive trading days.
"
Where did he get this $6.75 trigger price? If this
information turns out to be true, I'd say the redemption should trigger sometime
in mid-to-late April 2004 (given the way SCOX stock has been performing lately).
That could be a big problem for SCO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 03:10 PM EST |
This may be of interest
http://www.infosatellite.com/news/2001/12/h081201microsoft_softwarepiracy.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 07:13 PM EST |
PJ mere words can not describe how much I appreciate the fantastic job you are
doing! Thanks for covering the Minnesota trial. I don't know how you squeeze it
in. You make us Minnesotans feel special.
Not only are you a terrific asset for the Free Software Movement, you are an
inspiration for a whole new genre of grass roots civility. In the process I
delight in the education I am getting in litigation law. I often lunch with IP
lawyers. They were grateful that I sent them the URL for Groklaw. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LvilleDebugger on Monday, March 22 2004 @ 12:59 PM EST |
Thanks to Cyg for the assist. We now have all the exhibits transcribed. There
will doubtless be new exhibits as the case progresses. Let's all pitch in and
help PJ as these opportunities arise.
---
My Signature: Add value to your Groklaw comments, and get 'em read! Change the
default subject heading![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|