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
Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
Friday, January 07 2005 @ 04:06 AM EST

It seems like a good idea to collect all the information we can find on litigation involving Microsoft, anticompetitive practices, and antitrust allegations and violations. In part, we were inspired to do this by the Novell v. Microsoft lawsuit, an anti-trust case seeking money damages filed in U.S. Federal District Court on November, 2004 alleging anti-trust violations by Microsoft in regard to the WordPerfect word processing and Quattro Pro spreadsheet programs. But the SenderID fracas and the issues over Microsoft's license terms, as well as recent hints from Microsoft about patent threats to GNU/Linux were also motivating factors. The shredding of legal documents in the Caldera, Inc. v. Microsoft case was another influence. All in all, it seemed the right time for a permanent collection.

Because we are aware of a tension between patents and antitrust law, we hope a database of evidence (and leads to evidence) showing a long history of anti-competitive acts by Microsoft will serve as a valuable resource: (i) for any F/OSS developers who are later charged by Microsoft with patent infringement; (ii) for developers who may wish to sue Microsoft for refusal to license patented technology on reasonable terms; and (iii) by its existence and availability, creating a deterrent that will hopefully cause Microsoft decision-makers to think long and hard before mounting an intellectual property attack against the F/OSS community's code base or trying to establish a patent licensing policy to embrace and extend interoperability standards with proprietary rights to cripple F/OSS competition with Microsoft.

We've been working on this for a couple of weeks in-house. Now we feel we have enough of a framework to open it to the public, although we are aware it is not yet complete. If you know of any links we've overlooked, please do provide them in your comments, and we'll incorporate them. Then we'll make this a permanent resource page on Groklaw.

***********************************

Microsoft Litigation

  • Legal research
  • Miscellaneous
  • Topics

  •   


    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page | 314 comments | Create New Account
    Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
    Backup ?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 04:39 AM EST
    Does anyone have these pages stored somewhere in case they dissapear?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Halloween doc error
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 04:53 AM EST
    Halloween 1 doesnt look good.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:08 AM EST
    In the past, in some (most of the?) patent cases Microsoft was on the tough side
    of the stick. It is a bit unfair to call them bloodthirsty litigators. Yep, they
    did disgusting things around Lindows, but there are many more unfair cases
    against them. Still collecting evidence is a good deterrent, should some crazy
    idea hit them.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO is suing UK now!!!
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:32 AM EST
    SCO is suing UK companies now.

    http://www.technewsworld.com/story/39231.html

    <a
    href="http://www.technewsworld.com/story/39231.html">link</a>

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A new age begins
    Authored by: Gothic`Knight on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:59 AM EST
    I have always between quietly confident that despite the apparent setback to
    GNU/Linux that the SCOX debacle created that something good was a least possible
    from it all. Doesn't mean that anything is certain but as in services to freedom
    that Groklaw now provides would not be without the catelyst this round of
    litigation has spawned.

    This is not the beginning but it well maybe the beginning of the end. This whole
    SCOX nonesense is not about some land grab for Linux and the ownership of Unix
    it is a symbol of the IP lunacy that is occuring. Like all that are considered
    here know, IP law is important and as we all know the GPL is about copyright and
    relies on the law to protect the interests of those who seek its shelter. But
    the law should protect both the weak and the strong and allow fairness. In
    democracy you give up some right to enjoy freedom. You give up the freedom to
    kill, steal and pillage in order to gain the freedom to not be killed or
    violated.

    And theres are times to fight for freedom. SOme see Microsoft as evil, and at
    times when I read or hear of their business practices my blood boils a little
    sometimes. But I believe in the law and under corporate law they have
    obligations, as does SCOX to run a profitable business. But under the freedoms
    we have we have both the right and the obligation to ensure the law keeps them
    being fair.

    That of course is where software patents come in and on the face of it they are
    not fair and the law must be changed to this end. And as a symbol of this
    Microsoft stands out. The have been and continue to push good laws to breaking
    point and exploit bad ones to the maximum. They need to be watched and guess
    what thanks to Groklaw and perhaps to lessser degrees another site or two they
    are on notice to be carefull.

    Again thanks to the greed of the SCOX and/or Canopy group and some of theirs
    officers a new Open Source is growing. Open Source Law.

    Many eyes make all laws shallow.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    asf patent
    Authored by: Paul Shirley on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 06:41 AM EST
    Lets not forget the asf patent problem.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Seattle Computer Products?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 07:39 AM EST
    It seems that there was a lawsuit between Seattle Computer Products and
    Microsoft ... I have some links on the internet but nothing seems official to
    me.

    Perhaps, it would be interesting to have them in the resource page.

    Cheers.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The OS/2 story - The Microsoft & Citrix connection - MS tells Citrix "who is your daddy"...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 07:55 AM EST
    Note that there was a piece in the Groklaw comments awhile back that showed how
    Microsoft set up the key development folks at IBM's OS/2 group with funding
    (along with Intel, Novell and others that were Microsoft friendly venture
    capital types), and with lots of Money, a new company, and 100% full development
    rights to MS-OS/2 (that Microsoft had full rights to due to thedeal with IBM to
    develop OS/2)...!

    With MS-OS2 in hand, Citrix became a company . A Citrix
    multi-user/multi-tasking remote access product was soon born, for text based DOS
    applications, using OS/2 and the DOS apps then ran on top of it, and soon a
    Windows 3.11 GUI ran on top of MS-OS/2 as well!

    That MS-OS/2 Citrix and Microsoft blessed product quickly became the defacto
    remote access solution for Novell networks. Citrix became a public company.
    Soon a very nice Windows NT 3.51 product showed up. Microsoft and Citrix had a
    very close co-development relatinoship with MS and Citrix folks working almost
    side by side.

    Then Citrix developed a Windows NT 4 GUI based product, was done with it and was
    going to product out the CDs (or had already shipped the product to produce the
    CDs, or something like that) ... anyway, Citrix went into a meeting with
    Microsoft to get a license to use the NT 4 product AND then Microsoft said to
    Citrix - No! "Sorry Citrix", said Microsoft, "but we Microsoft,
    are going to build and sell a NT 4 based multiuser/multi-tasking product
    ourselves, or license it, or buy it from someone..." Ouch said Citrix we
    have to tell our stockholders about this. Citrix went from way up in the 80s
    (or so, don't quite remember) down to 10 (that I do remember). In ONE day the
    stock dropped!

    Months and Months passed by, and then Microsoft and Citrix came out of meetings
    with a deal that Citrix could not refuse. Microsoft bought the
    mutli-user/multi-tasking product from Citrix (for a coupld hundred million or
    so) and did a relicense back to Citrix, and the price of Citrix stock went back
    up. Micosoft and Citrix had this deal. But, we all know who Citrix's
    "daddy" really was. The NT 4 multi-user/multi-tasking product came
    out and guess what... Folks inside Citrix said that it was the same thing that
    they had worked on months and months before!

    Microsoft owned a bunch of Citrix at this time. The SEC never has looked at
    this close relationship. Citrix is a captive independent company of Micrsofts.
    Citrix's employees (many ex-IBMers), who assisted with Windows develpment since
    Wndows 3.11 (Citrix came out with the cleaner code that Microsoft ended up
    using), were key developers for Microsoft, and they never did get any Micorsoft
    stock options or benefits at all. Many Microsoft executives served on Citrix's
    board of directors.

    If you ever wondered why IBM OS/2 was slow getting out of the gate. Well, Bill
    Gates, who was supposed to be a partner with IBM to develop OS/2, had arranged
    for a raid on IBM's development group (taking the head and 14 other developers
    with them). Can you imagine if the same happened to Linux... if, a key group of
    LINUX folks were lured away from Linux to work for a different company that
    Microsoft arranged to have set up!

    There was a printed story (not on internet) about this in an issue of Pick
    System's "Pick World" channel magazine back in the 1990's that someone
    here on Groklaw mentioned a while back.

    It was said then, that Pick Systems should use Citrix OS/2 based product instead
    of UNIX.

    The strong arm tactics that Microsoft uses with it's partners has never been
    looked at by the US Justice Dept., the SEC, or by any European Union anti-trust
    group.

    Previous Groklaw mention of this:
    http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20031124125314370&ti
    tle=ED+and+IBM+and+Citrix+and+MS+%28reduced+and+clarified%29&type=article&am
    p;order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=26530#c26593

    Someone who claimed to be a former Citrix employee backs it up here:
    http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20031124125314370&ti
    tle=ED+and+IBM+and+Citrix+and+MS+%28reduced+and+clarified%29&type=article&am
    p;order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=26607#c26621

    Full quote from the Citrix employee post is below:

    [begin quote]

    Hogwash!

    First, I'm posting anonymously for reasons you'll soon understand.

    Second, I used to work for Citrix.

    Third, Nobody at Citrix, particularly Ed. I, had any love for Microsoft.

    To answer the original posters question, most, if not all, of the IBM staff that
    came to Citrix were technical, not marketing.

    The reason Ed and the rest of them left IBM is that Ed saw that a multi-user
    version of OS/2 would be a "really good thing". But, IBM did not want
    to damage their, more profitable, mainframe business.

    So, Ed convinved Microsoft to license OS/2 to them and then later to license
    Windows NT.

    Regarding Citrix's UNIX products, they do have ICA Clients for Linux.

    They did a UNIX ICA-server product that would allow you to connect to UNIX apps
    through ICA. They never did that on Linux, but that was a business decision
    based on the size of the market for UNIX applications. I.e., the big users of
    UNIX systems are the financial guys and they are all using Solaris. So, that's
    what Citrix supported.

    To be honest, I'm surprised Ed is on the SCO board. On the occasions that I
    talked to him at Citrix, he always struck me as a man of integrity. I suspect he
    joined when SCO were still Caldera and I can only hope he doesn't have much say
    in what's happening now.

    [end quote]

    Microsoft is the evil empire! Beware of the dark side!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    GEM
    Authored by: magic_user on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 08:04 AM EST
    This OS was used on Atari computers (ST) and on IBM compatables. MS sued them
    out of usefulness by using the look-and-feel argument (overlapping windows). I
    think this would make a nice addition to your list.

    GEM was produced by (I think) Digital Research.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • GEM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 08:47 AM EST
    • GEM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 08:59 AM EST
    • GEM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:13 AM EST
      • GEM - Authored by: Turin on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:54 PM EST
        • GEM - Authored by: Pop69 on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:37 PM EST
        • GEM - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:55 PM EST
        • GEM - Authored by: marbux on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 07:13 PM EST
          • GEM - Authored by: Turin on Sunday, January 02 2005 @ 12:53 AM EST
    • GEM - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST
    FUD on Amazon.com: Microsoft Marketing Trolls
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:01 AM EST

    I noticed that if you check out the product and book reviews of open-source
    products on Amazon.com, you get highly biased negative reviews by microsoft
    marketing trolls.

    They won't say they work for microsoft but you will notice that they shamelessly
    plug "Microsoft Office 2003", "Microsoft Windows XP
    Professional" or "Microsoft Windows Server 2003" after their
    review. Yes, they use the full name. Not "Office", not
    "XP", the full product names.

    They sometimes claim that the competitors product accidently distroyed their
    hard drives and they had to do costly repairs.

    I think it's a major security flaw in Windows for user-mode programs to distroy
    your computer. User-mode programs should never have access to adminstrator
    commands to allow serious and costly damage. In Linux, for example, user-mode
    programs are fenced off.

    What I find really awesome is that we have people on Amazon exposing these
    microsoft marketing trolls and it's working. I just feel sorry for those who
    believe that if they purchase StarOffice, it will reformat their hard drive and
    they would have to have a pc technician come out and fix it. Or that they had
    to trash entire system because SuSe Linux fried their motherboard.

    Amazon needs to verify wether these people purchase these products or not. Do
    they have credibility ratings?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft v. Minnesota
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:09 AM EST
    Minnesota Consumers and Businesses that bought Microsoft software, or a computer on which it was installed, can Claim Microsoft Settlement Benefits under a settlement with a face value amount of $174.5 million.

    http://www.microsoftminnesot asettlement.com/

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    WMP10 deletes firefox? can anyone else confirm or reproduce this?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:35 AM EST
    --- Steve Browne <sbrowne@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
    >> Not about Linux directly, but I noticed on my Windows ME system that
    >> when I installed Windows Media Player 10, it deleted the Program
    >> FilesMozilla Firefox directory. I tried this several times to be
    >> sure, uninstalling WMP10 and re-installing Firefox. No doubt about it.
    >>
    >> Firefox meets The Weasel!
    >>
    >> Steve
    >> Stephen B. Browne
    >> sbrowne@ix.netcom.com
    >> "Ubi bene, ibi patria."
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> NMLUG mailing list
    >> NMLUG@nmlug.org
    >> http://www.nmlug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmlug
    >>

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    BSA Tactics (off topic?)
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:03 AM EST
    Read about BSA raiding Earnie Ball in 2000.
    http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
    (and Earnie Ball switched to Linux)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Borland
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:25 AM EST
    May 7, 1997 Borland International filed a lawsuit against Microsoft, claiming that the software giant is hiring away Borland's key employees to put it out of business. link

    Incidently, this affects current developments, as Microsoft's .NET initiative and C# language was designed by former Borland employees, and much of the language has remarkable resemblance to Borland's Delphi product.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Borland - Authored by: rweiler on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 04:10 PM EST
    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: Gothic`Knight on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:58 AM EST
    I was going to go to bed as I've had a bit to say but read through some
    additions to this page while I wrote a reply to a comment. This I believe is
    fully on topic and a topic that should be investigated but if I am over posting
    on the main page PJ move me where it should be best.

    In the Opera browser when I last used it, when a page won't display correctly
    you have the option to get the browser to announce itself as IE 6. Now call me a
    conspirsist if you like but as far as I am aware nothing changes except the site
    is fooled into thinking that the browser is IE 6 and low and behold the page
    renders.

    Now I don't have any evidence or links so maybe someone else has or perhaps this
    "anomaly" can be explained but it strikes me as odd and on the surface
    appears something says "this not IE, make the rendering look bad" or
    in the case of my bank " give this guy the menu but when he clicks on it,
    do nothing".

    Now this is either an oddity, explainable in some technical manner that means
    nothing at all or it is evidence of MS playing unfairly and needs further
    investigation.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: Bas Burger on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:14 AM EST
    I think this is a good idea, mainly because all in this world is connected.
    This way judges will see what mess MS made in the past and maybe decide less
    light sentences for MS.
    Now the Law keeps forgetting that MS is the bullie from the class, if they are
    more pressed to the fact the image about MS might change.
    There are still too many people fanboy and girl of Bill Gates.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Steve Stites letter to the SEC
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:55 AM EST
    Plenty of information here:

    http://users.rcn.com/srstites/jacuse/sec.complaint.v4.html

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 12:45 PM EST
    I have often wondered about this one.

    http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html#dr

    copy/paste from the site

    * 1982 - Digital Research sues Microsoft and IBM - Wins - . It was obvious
    MS-DOS and its PC-DOS variant were simply rip- offs of Digital Research's CP/M
    operating system. It remained only to prove it contained DR code. DR's Gary
    Kildall sat down at an IBM PC supplied by IBM and, using a secret code, got it
    to pop up a Digital Research copyright notice.
    It's case won, Digital Research received monetary compensation and the right to
    clone MS-DOS. This is why Microsoft never sued DR over DR-DOS, but used every
    other means to destroy it. The settlement was under a strict non- disclosure
    agreement, so few even know DR sued, never mind that they won.
    Digital Research was purchased by Novel and destroyed by neglect and
    mismanagement. The products now belong to Caldera, which has filed suit against
    Microsoft over predatory practices used to destroy DR-DOS's market.

    If anyone has the info on this one that verifies this case it should certainly
    be included in this list.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Software 'integrated' into the OS
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 02:29 PM EST
    Wouldn't it be nice to have a list of software that has vanished from the market
    after MS has chosen to 'integrate' that kind of functionality into the operating
    system?

    Most famous should be Netscape/IE, but I can also remember the 'disk-doublers'
    (Stacker?), disk-defragmenters, Netware, WinZip (not yet vanished, but who needs
    it with XPs ability to zip and unzip), Office-Applications/MS-Office (ok, not
    OS, but bundled),

    While it might be argued that that funcionality is/should be part of the OS, but
    it might help build a history of MS using its position as OS-producer to push
    competitors away from the market. After all, none of this functionality was
    present in DOS/Windows before the third-party solutions were marketed.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Suggestions
    Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 03:08 PM EST
    This is quite a collectionj you have. Is it worthwhile to add Microsoft's own pages on their licensing agreements terms and conditions? IMHO this is very useful evidence of anti-competitive behaviour directed as excluding FOSS.

    I would suggest at least

    The Microsoft Royalty Free Protocol Licensing agreement

    MCPP

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 03:14 PM EST
    PJ: I think is a great idea to gather this resource page; but it should have
    only "Litigation Resources". I see a lot of journal and news
    references, that are not true trial documents, neither valid proofs. I think in
    this page you should remove all doubtful documents; unfortunately, most news are
    biased (on one or other side), or report opinions that are not sustainable as
    legal testimony. Maybe you can have another "news link" section, with
    both the very biased articles you have reported promoting SCO, and the
    anti-Microsoft biased articles, telling "I think it should be
    connected", but showing no hard evidence. But in the Litigation Resource, I
    think there should be only material presented on previous trials, so it can be
    really useful on new trials; as it was showed masterfully yesterday, news are
    not good as "proof" on a trial, because papers and reporters have not
    the objectives that judges and jurys should have.

    Thanks for all the true legal resources, very interesting and useful.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 03:24 PM EST

    Slightly off topic (litigation about trademarks not IP or licenses), but funny:

    The pillow case (pun intended).

    John

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Thank you, PJ...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 03:45 PM EST
    for creating this framework - I'm blown away by how extensive it is already.
    Since the SCO debacle is coming to a close, I've lost a great deal of interest
    in the day to day activities. The current M$ threat causes me concern - they
    should think, more than once, before continuing business as usual. A quick
    review of what happened to SCO should cause them pause. While B. Gates thinks,
    and his money confirms, that he is smarter than everyone who contributes to
    Groklaw, the facts prove otherwise. Continue BG at your own risk.

    Thank you PJ, for furthering your impact in the backwaters of the SCO/M$'s pond.
    I know you value your freedom, but you make it possible for everyone to enjoy
    theirs, too. May the new year bring you what you want most, and more success in
    fighting against those who would stifle freedom.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: tbogart on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 03:47 PM EST
    In the OS/2 section, the bullet "Kodak tangles with Microsoft over Win
    XP" doesn't seem to have anything to do with OS/2.

    Thanks.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OT: Looks like TSG gets until Jan 20 as well
    Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 03:49 PM EST

    In a previous thread here on Groklaw, there was some debate as to whether an awarded extension of time for IBM (until Jan 20th) meant that TSG would also get the same extension. I took the position that IBM was the only one who asked for it, and that the "Stipulated" order submitted by TSG and G2 held no weight.

    Looks like I was wrong. Doc 363 is now on Pacer, and it looks like Judge Kimball signed off on the stipulated order that TSG and G2 submitted, including the "SCO's response shall be due on the same day as IBM's" language. I guess that is as official as it gets, TSG and IBM both get a delay until Jan 20th.

    ---
    "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Brazil's entry
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 04:01 PM EST

    I am not quite sure how to reconcile MS's statement and the Brazilian offical decision.

    The Brazilian CADE ordered the process to be closed, indeed. But it also ordered additional investigations relating 3 different issues:

    (1) probable ilegality from the buyers (two government-owned financial institutions) due to no public RFP. This might affect MS because the current contract may be voided by court;

    (2) probable ilegality from buyers/sellers for writing, in the contracts, the values in foreign (to Brazil) currency. MS is not directly (so far) involved here since the negotiations were done between the buyers and a MS partner in Brazil.

    (3) But it went ahead and also ordered a federal department to investigate possible issues regarding (indirectly) monopoly, not addressed in the official decision. And this goes squarely on MS.

    So, at least as of this decision, MS was not yet out of the fire. The specific complaint(s) was/were dismissed, but the CADE saw reason to request more discovery -- which may, or may not, end up on new issues.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Corel Wordperfect settlement
    Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 04:41 PM EST
    The settlement, iirc, was driven at least in part because MS sued Corel for
    patent infringement. One of them, as far as I could make out, was "for
    looking words up in an electronic dictionary". In other words, it sounded
    like a patent that should never have been granted (like the other patents
    involved here, too).

    As part of it (and this is very anti-competitive) Corel agreed to redevelop
    WordPerfect as a dedicated Windows program (don't forget - it was originally
    very cross-platform), and they also agreed to drop the internationalisation of
    WordPerfect. As far as I'm aware, although WordPerfect can still handle foreign
    characters, pretty much all of its internationalisation stuff is no longer
    available.

    If any information on this settlement can be obtained, I think it could turn out
    to be a mine of useful information. I know the shares that MS bought were
    non-voting, but MS had a major influence on what happened in Corel at the time -
    all very much to MS's advantage.

    Okay, I know that MS may have saved Corel from bankruptcy - but was that
    imminent bankruptcy down to MS's illegal actions...

    Cheers,
    Wol

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Dealing with the Devil
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:08 PM EST
    Here's an article with several case studies of companies that have partnered
    with Microsoft and what has happened to them afterwards.
    http://www.jas.com/shame/shame/casestudies.html

    A few other cases I can think of

    Blue Mountain Arts
    outlook express /Webtv were blocking Blue Mountain Cards (which started after
    microsoft started their own greeting card service)

    TV Host
    developed a television guide for pc's. microsoft gained access to their product
    and business plan during negotiations then decided to write their own product
    and integrate it into the operating system.

    STAC
    I heard somewhere that after microsoft lost the STAC case, they successfully
    sued STAC for using undocumented DOS functions. Can anyone confirm this?

    Antitrust vs Fraud
    http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/tmblog/archives/004086.html

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: jkondis on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:42 PM EST
    I didn't see this anywhere in the list: MS Fakes Video Evidence in its Antitrust Trial [Register article - the Reuters article seems to have disappeared]

    ---
    Don't steal. Microsoft hates competition.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The March of Dimes, Groklaw and Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 05:48 PM EST
    The March of Dimes originally mission was the fight against Polio, they suceeded
    in their fight with the helping fund the creation the Salk and sabin vaccines.


    After they won the fight rather than going out of business, they realized they
    had a great infrastructure to use in the fight for other health issues, and they
    took up the cause of birth defects and infant mortality.


    Sometime soon(who am I kidding?) the fight against SCO is going to end, and I'm
    glad to see that Groklaw is sowing the seeds for it's continued presense in the
    fight against the forces that would destroy the Open Source Movement.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    EULA question
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 06:32 PM EST
    IANAL, etc.
    I think it would be very useful to have an analysis of the MS End User License
    Agreement (EULA) and how it has changed over the course of time. What were the
    terms for Windows 3.1, how about for Windows XP SP2. Service packs now modify
    or replace the EULA from the purchased product, has this always been the case?
    Just some directions for research.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Correction
    Authored by: emmenjay on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 07:25 PM EST
    The "Kodak" piece under the OS/2 heading does not appear to be related
    to OS/2. Perhaps it should be under another heading.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    But is it _really_ evidence?
    Authored by: Zarbo on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:18 PM EST

    I think having all this information in one place is a great idea. It surely will be useful to some level and will save someone a lot of effort. I am just not certain to what extent it can be used as "evidence". I seek enlightenment, here. AllParadox, marbux, webster, ... comments?

    The information is collected to use as a reference, and could well end up cited as evidence in a lawsuit by parties unknown. Have you thought about ways of preserving the Web-based evidence and documentation in the repository, as opposed to links? If the original Web data goes away, just like in the SCOG mess, so does some useful evidence or an essential piece of the data trail. A careful edit (or purge) of on-line HTML and words no longer point in the same direction or support the same arguments. Picture dangling links pointing into an information black hole.

    Also, imagine having to subpeona the original "source" for hundreds of linked documents, some of which might be message board posts, HTML pages, emails, or other electronic, "volatile" data. What happens if the original is truly gone and not just hidden on a tape in some closet? Is the bit-mapped rendering acceptable? Just how does this intersection between the digital age and the courts work?

    Even for hard-copy documents that are scanned and processed with OCR software, there are issues of veracity unless there is some process followed that preserves the integrity of the information. We cannot always count on the honesty of the sources. Should there be a rating system for the trustworthiness of court documents versus marketing releases from Microsoft? Does anyone see this as an issue?

    I bring this up because I believe that we are approaching the point where any digital medium may be realistically falsified. Today this is an issue with print, tomorrow an issue with video and sound. Given that possibility, there must be some way to ensure that you are looking at or hearing an accurate representation of the true information at some given moment in time.

    For Web-based data, what is really needed is a capture tool that, given a URL, grabs the page(s), the style, the graphics, and the whole shebang or captures the proper rendering of the page. That appears to be only part of the battle, however. "Is that really what was there at the time?", is the question I can see being asked by a legal opponent. What kind of capture/preservation process is needed to make sure that digital evidence doesn't get altered from its original form and that it is usable in a legal proceeding?

    So that brings me to some more questions:

  • What are the legal standards for using this type of "volatile" information as evidence in court?

  • How do you insulate the rendering of the information (HTML -> bit-mapped graphics, for example) from the actual underlying data? [do you store the rendering tool(s) or the bit-mapped information or the original "source" or all three?]

  • How do you objectively ensure that the data you are presenting has not been altered to enhance your case or save your skin?

  • What happens with volatile documents that no longer exist in their original form because of loss or purges? Is the rendered version proof that the document and information really existed?
  • One would suspect that deleting Web site data on a regular basis will start happening, just like with email archives. Given that possibility, there has to be some way to both preserve the snapshot of the data and ensure that later you are looking at (or hearing) a true facsimile rather than a dummied-up simulacrum of the information in question.

    Does anyone else see this as an issue? With an opponent like Microsoft, I think this is bound to come up.

    --Zarbo++;


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • it isn't evidence - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 05:03 AM EST
    • Dear Zarbo - Authored by: webster on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:49 PM EST
      • Dear Zarbo - Authored by: Zarbo on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 11:57 PM EST
    You forgot the GoldTouch Mouse Suit
    Authored by: Sunfish on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 09:33 PM EST
    here is a link to the story
    [url]http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,16849,00.html[/url]

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Quite a record...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:13 PM EST

    Is it just me or does it seem like there's an awful lot of legal activity surrounding Microsoft.

    I'm wondering: Can anyone think of a company with as much commercial presence as Microsoft with this many legal actions having been taken against it? I can easily imagine how a corporation the size of, say, General Motors, Ford, a few of the big pharmaceutical companies have a fair number of lawsuits that they have to defend against but, in Microsoft's case, it seems like a huge number. Especially given the relatively brief lifetime of the company (approximately 25 years).

    What I find particularly disconcerting is that these aren't the same sort of legal actions being taken either. While you'll see a lot of things like product liability suits, negligence, etc., taken out against the companies like GM or Ford, in Microsoft's case, they're more like theft cases. Makes you wonder how anyone can find Microsoft a good long-term investment. They spend an awful lot of time in the courts.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Great work, PJ!
    Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 10:47 PM EST
    And a lot more than I would have imagined! Says a lot about the Criminal Monopoly and their continuous bad habits.

    Somehow I just knew you would be working over Christmas.....

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Shrinkwrap EULA Agreement
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:10 PM EST
    I just ran accross this
    http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2004/12/20/8257/4850

    it is about a shrink wrap issue folks here might find interesting.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:13 PM EST
    Why blame Microsoft? I do believe the FOSS and Microsoft are both playing the
    same game. Both have little respect for frivolous/silly patents. What FOSS
    intends to root out through awareness - MS is doing by trial and error and
    trying to basically live with it. Do not forget that MS has some of the best
    brains in the industry who can very easily realize the stupidity of patenting
    software and with capital in hands - they do the only thing permitted by law -
    buy out the patent holder. FOSS should join hands with MS on the condition that
    MS not apply for patents while infringng other idiotic ones. And FOSS should
    support MS.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OT: Musing on G2 and SCO unsealing of documents
    Authored by: M on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:32 PM EST
    <tinfoilhat>

    Does anyone else find it interesting that SCO was pushing for an extremely close
    deadline for the unsealing of documents, and simultaneously were giving out
    Change of Control agreements to the senior board members? I don't know what's
    in the document that SCO has apparently found and wants to make public, but
    judging by their behaviour, SCO seems to think that IBM would rather buy them
    out than let this document be revealed to the public...

    </tinfoilhat>

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I predict . . .
    Authored by: ujay on Tuesday, December 28 2004 @ 11:38 PM EST
    A rather interesting time at MS HQ tomorrow. Considering how PJ et al have
    eviscerated SCO, they have to worry about such information being collected and
    reviewed here.

    ---
    Oh NO! Spankme.com just threw a brick through our Windows!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Tax
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 03:56 AM EST
    I could not find a reference here but the other incidious thing about Microsoft
    is their "tax" and other possibly dubious contracts with PC suppliers
    that force you to but a licence for some Microsoft Operating System when buying
    a PC from them even if:-
    1) You are not going to run ay Microsoft O/S on the PC
    2) You already have a valid licence for the Microsoft O/S for that System. eg,
    you are upgrading a system or are a Microsoft Partner and pay them a sum of
    money for a range of software.

    Try to buy a laptop from the likes of Dell (or most other suppliers) without an
    O/S from Microsoft included.
    IMHO (and IANAL) this is a clear restrictive practice and should be outlawed. It
    seems that your are 'guilty before charge' is you do this. It should be up to
    the suppliers of the Software (Or their appointed agents) to prove that you are
    using their product without a valid license after the fact rather than as a
    pre-requisite to the purchase of some hardware.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    White Paper from www.procompetition.org
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 05:02 AM EST

    White paper: MICROSOFT’S EXPANDING MONOPOLIES: CASTING A WIDER .NET

    Link: http://www.pro competition.org/headlines/WhitePaper5_15.pdf

    The white paper is a bit old (May 2001) but still an interesting read. In my view it is an interesting analysis of Microsofts business practices.
    Here is a teaser from the conclusion:

    To ensure that consumers are forced to adopt the "Internet" version of Windows (which Microsoft has dubbed .NET) in accordance with Microsoft's time schedule, Microsoft will use techniques even more blatant than those it used to force adoption of its browser, where its market share now exceeds 88%. For example, Microsoft has hardwired key components of its "Internet" Windows into its forthcoming Windows XP desktop product in a way that consumers cannot alter or delete, and that some of which load and run automatically whenever consumers turn on their machines. Simultaneously, Microsoft has stripped computer makers of their ability to add icons of third-party software vendors onto the desktop or in the start menu. When consumers start Windows XP, therefore, consumers will have precisely one browser, one email product, one media player, one authentication service, and one instant messaging program. The browser bolted to Windows XP similarly "hardwires" one media player, one instant messaging service, one search engine, and one word processor into the program; while depriving consumer of choice by forcing only one news service, one travel service, one calendar, and one magazine into their browser’s personal toolbar.

    Regards,
    Peter Frandsen

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    This is really great!
    Authored by: haegarth on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:49 AM EST
    Well, I'm stunned. This is an overwhelming resource. Thanks to all who
    contributed and to PJ for her website.

    ---
    MS holds the patent on FUD, and SCO is its licensee....

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Promises not to Sue Resource Page?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 10:18 AM EST
    Comany execs sometimes make statements that they will not sue FOSS developers on
    patent grounds e.g IBM, Novell. Perhaps the community should keep a database of
    such promises and if a lawsuit is ever brought the statements could be used as a
    basis for a countersuit using promissory estoppel.

    IANAL so this is probably completely off base.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Sybase - MS-SQL server and MS Monopoly board not mentioned yet
    Authored by: Arthur Marsh on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 12:14 PM EST
    Although previously mentioned on Groklaw, the Sybase / Microsoft
    "partnership" is not mentioned on this page.

    Also, does anyone have a working link to the "Microsoft Monopoly"
    board game?


    ---
    http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix.html

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Patent Prior Art Page Too?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 12:41 PM EST
    Perhaps a section on Software Patents and prior art would be
    of value as well. Most if not all Microsoft patents are not
    unique inventions. This would be a useful research site to
    protect us from the US patent system. This does not have to
    be Microsoft specific. I think many software patents are
    trivial and need to be de-bunked. Just a thought.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Borland sues MS over staff poaching
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST
    Borland sues MS over staff poaching
    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2065714,00.htm

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 02:52 PM EST
    VMS + 1 = WNT = Microsoft Paid Digital since they threatened a lawsuit
    http://www.winntmag.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/4652/4652.html

    Microsoft settles most of patent lawsuit with AT&T
    http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;743041766;fp;512;fpid;1059559045

    Microsoft discrimination case grows
    http://news.com.com/2100-1001-255280.html?legacy=cnet

    Microsoft Vs Wang
    http://news.com.com/2100-1023-210967.html?legacy=cnet
    The following is a nice resource for seeing other awards...
    http://www.patenting-art.com/economic/awards.htm
    It states that Microsoft paid 90 million in Wang lawsuit.

    * Also beside just the companies involved, a bit of elaboration
    would be handy beside his each entry.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Bad link and HIPAA addition
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 10:44 PM EST
    The link "Microsoft, hardware vendors face raft of OEM license suits" in the miscellaneous section doesn't work because it contains an extra space.

    How about a section for the HIPAA controversy? A couple of years ago Microsoft had an EULA which allowed Microsoft to silently update your computer's software, which violated medical privacy regulations. http: //reviews.infoworld.com/article/02/09/13/020916opwinman_1.html. Microsoft allegedly solved the problem by issuing a clarification of the license, a clarification which I haven't been able to find anywhere.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: iraskygazer on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 01:08 AM EST
    It is ironic that the Microsoft money machine was produced by the free and open
    copying of their operating system. Bill knew of ways to prevent copying of the
    early versions of the OS but chose to use this free and open copying as a
    marketing tool. Now that MS has the entire world in its legal grasp it is
    preparing methods to close the vise. I'm glad that Groklaw exists to present the
    history of MS trends, to include both legal and other processes. I just hope we
    aren't too late to prevent a catastrophe. I hope the world will have enough
    strength to resist 'world dominance of software development' by Microsoft. In
    this I'm not saying that MS has not done some good for the entire world. But we,
    the world FOSS community, need to be careful when reviewing any steps MS may
    take to close their grip on the future of all software.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    How about adding Win Modems?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 07:10 PM EST
    How About adding Win Modems?

    they dont work (if at all) without special software.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    ATT vs Microsoft
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 07:32 PM EST
    This this useful?

    http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0617att.html

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft and protocol standards articles
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 08:09 PM EST
    I remember reading some articles a while ago that
    describe how MS would modify protocols so they would
    not work with competitors. I'm trying to find some
    of those articles.

    I found this:
    http://www.nwfusion.com/news/1005ms.html

    at the bottom is an article by SPA and a MS rebuttal.
    neither are available anymore.
    In an attempt to find it, I came across this Japanese site
    http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ki4s-nkmr/mswatch12.html
    Although I can not read Japanese, the links in it maybe
    fill in some gaps.

    Here's an article on the SPA paper
    http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0622spa.html

    I found this article on MS implementing tcp/ip
    in win 95.

    http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/1996/96-04-01micr.html





    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Site to add
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 04 2005 @ 02:56 PM EST

    I try to collect as much information on Microsoft as I can for my site MS Versus and its online book, both all about Microsoft. I note all sources in detail. The book prints out to over 100 pages. Anyone can contribute, beyond just the topic of litigation.

    I hate to self-promote in comments, but I think it's a decent source of a lot of information, especially their conduct. It would go in the "Miscellaneous" or "Topics/Miscellaneous" section.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: Stumbles on Saturday, January 08 2005 @ 10:44 PM EST
    I don't know how much of the following link is redundant, I found it looking through some old, old bookmark files I had.

    Microsoft the company

    ---
    You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: Stumbles on Sunday, January 09 2005 @ 09:08 AM EST
    It's my impression many of the cases brought against Microsoft and
    settled have gag orders. I wonder if these can be repealed (correct
    term)? To what end this would be useful, I don't know since it's not
    known what's been silenced.

    Just a thought anyway.

    ---
    You can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Some comments left elsewhere
    Authored by: PJ on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:00 PM EST
    They have been mentioned elsewhere on GL but this post is just to make
    sure they get achived. Apologies for the duplicated effort.

    Certificate of Authenticity Cases

    From the MS web site

    Lawsuits which allege copyright and trademark infringement have been filed
    against the following:

    Monarch Technology Inc. of San Clemente, Calif.

    Kenneth Xu of Union City, Calif.

    Era Limited of Lake Zurich, Ill.

    Micro Info Tech (USA) Corp. of Edison, N.J.

    Affordable Computer Warehouse of Clinton, N.Y.

    Warp Systems/Computers LLC of Raleigh, N.C.

    Master Computer Inc. of State College, Pa.

    Software Provisions of Vancouver, Wash.

    Defendants in each case allegedly continued their distribution of counterfeit
    COA labels or unlicensed software even after they were contacted by
    Microsoft
    and before the lawsuits were filed requesting that they halt their illegal
    activities.

    ++++++++++++

    From El Reg

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/12/dutch_resellers/

    100 Dutch resellers facing legal action from MS.

    Sorry no further details on this at the minute. Maybe (an)other poster(s) can
    help here?

    --

    MadScientist

    ************************


    RE: Translation of the Webwereld article

    Authored by: Darkelve on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:39 AM EST


    Translation of original article at:
    http://www.webwereld.nl/nieuws/20510.phtml

    "Heavy damage claims [from] MS for Resellers"

    Wednesday, january 12 2005 - Microsoft Netherlands has started an offensive
    against reseller which are said to sell licenses in illegal ways [litterally:
    in
    ways departing from the original purpose]. The resellers are furious.
    distributeurs zijn razend.

    (By Laurens Verhagen)
    Illustration by: Tino Perez

    It is unknown exactly how many companies have been contacted by the
    lawyers of
    the software concern. However, Hein Kernkamp (the name of both the lawyer
    and
    his company), a lawyer from Rotterdam, says his company continues to
    receive
    more cases every week.

    His company represent a number of them in their battle against Microsoft.
    The
    software company itself states that, by now, 'several hundreds' resellers end
    distributors have been contacted [they received a letter]. A few dozens of
    these
    have effectively received a damage claim.

    At stake is the reselling of software licenses without a cd-rom and booklet.
    According to Microsoft, this is a forbidden practice, but a lot of ICT
    companies
    have - in their own opinion with [the] full confidence [they did nothing
    wrong].

    The position of Microsoft, however, is that only the combination of sticker,
    hologram, booklet and CD-rom can be sold. But often this is not the case.

    An ICT company from the city of Overijssel (which does not want to be
    named,
    since the procedure with MS is still running), is one of the targets of
    Microsoft. A short while ago, this company got a damage claim of 40 000
    euro on
    its doormat.

    [Subtitle] In good faith

    The CEO is stupified: "We have acted completely in good faith. We always
    paid for the license without fail."

    Between 2001 and 2003, the company did business with the distributor
    License
    Express. License Express traded in second-hand licenses, e.g. bought from
    multinationals in the possession of double licenses. This was only about the
    stickers, without the -according to Microsoft- essential booklets and CD's.

    The company from Overijssel stopped with these licenses in June 2003,
    because it
    became clear MS has problems with this practice.

    Yet MS came last week with the damage claim. "This is unheard of",
    according to the director when contacted by WebWereld. "I have been doing
    business with MS for years. Now they are abusing their position. I will not
    accept this at all."

    Forbidden

    He is not the only one that thinks like this, says lawyer Kernkamp. "Cases
    like these are occurring in all of the country. MS wants the trade in loose
    stickers to be forbidden. They are saying "we do not sell loose license
    stickers, so others are not allowed to do that either".

    Kernkamp, who cannot give opinions about individual cases, says that MS
    *does*,
    however, sells loose licenses, e.g. to OEM parties. "According to the
    rules
    of the free market, you cannot have any problems with this practice if others
    do
    what you are doing yourself".

    Microsoft itself is, according to the lawyer 'extremely vague' about its
    license
    politics. Kernkamp would like it best if the facts come to the surfuce in a
    ...[litteral: bottom procedure - meaning what??]

    Finally, the lawyer notes that in the US, loose licenses (license only) *are*
    allowed by MS.

    In a reaction, MS states the goal of this action is to make the distribution
    channel aware of the fact that illegal software cannot be tolerated. When
    being
    asked the question if illegal software is indeed what this is what is the case
    here, the spokesman avoided the question by saying

    "we are not going to discuss this".

    Square brackets are remarks by me, text liberally translated. Original source:
    webwereld, see link at top of this message.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Litigation Resource Page
    Authored by: PJ on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 09:04 PM EST
    Just to let everyone know: this ran originally on Dec. 12.
    I keep moving it up so it isn't so hard to find. When we
    get our static page done, soon, I'll put it back where it was
    originally.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    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 )