|Supreme Court rejects Microsoft appeal: Novell v. Microsoft can go forward - Update
Monday, March 17 2008 @ 12:57 PM EDT
This is a big win for Novell. Here's a snip from the AP account:
The Supreme Court on Monday handed Microsoft Corp. a defeat by refusing to rule on the software giant's request to halt an antitrust suit against it.
The suit was brought in 2004 by Waltham, Mass.-based Novell Inc., which said in court papers that Microsoft "deliberately targeted and destroyed" its WordPerfect and QuattroPro programs in order to protect its Windows operating system monopoly....
The Supreme Court's decision allows Novell's lawsuit to continue. The case is Microsoft Corp. v. Novell Inc., 07-924. Chief Justice John Roberts, who owns Microsoft stock, recused himself from the decision.
So, more antitrust woes for Microsoft. You can find the prior filings on Groklaw's permanent Novell v. MS Timeline page. Here's the Order [PDF] by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that the Supreme Court just left standing. The Supreme Court opinion is not posted, because it's a refusal to hear the case, not an opinion, but here's where Supreme Court opinions are posted, just so you know, and here's where the refusals to hear a case, called summary dispositions, are posted, and you'll find Microsoft listed on page 15 of this document[PDF]. If you forget, note that we have info on how to find courts on both our Courts page and our Legal Research page.
This is a case in part about standards and interoperability. Here's Novell's Complaint [PDF], and we have it as text, along with some analysis, here. With OOXML on the table, it's very timely to read how Novell alleges Microsoft deliberately undermined interoperability, degraded standards, and withheld from competitors necessary technical documentation.
In that connection, you might be interested in either reading a transcript or viewing the video of the the opening talk at the 3rd Idlelo African Conference on FOSS and the Digital Commons, FOSSFA, a speech by the Minister of Public Service and Administration, South Africa, Ms. Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi. Here's a bit of what she said about standards:
The adoption of open standards by governments is a critical factor in building interoperable information systems which are open, accessible, fair and which reinforce democratic culture and good governance practices. In South Africa we have a guiding document produced by my department called the Minimum Interoperability Standards for Information Systems in Government (MIOS). The MIOS prescribes the use of open standards for all areas of information interoperability, including, notably, the use of the Open Document Format (ODF) for exchange of office documents. ODF is an open standard developed by a technical committee within the OASIS consortium. The committee represents multiple vendors and Free Software community groups. OASIS submitted the standard to the International Standards Organisation in 2005 and it was adopted as an ISO standard in 2006. South Africa is amongst a growing number of National Governments who have adopted ODF over the past year.
It is unfortunate that the leading vendor of office software, which enjoys considerable dominance in the market, chose not to participate and support ODF in its products, but rather to develop its own competing document standard which is now also awaiting judgement in the ISO process. If it is successful, it is difficult to see how consumers will benefit from these two overlapping ISO standards. I would like to appeal to vendors to listen to the demands of consumers as well as Free Software developers. Please work together to produce interoperable document standards. The proliferation of multiple standards in this space is confusing and costly....
An issue which poses a significant threat to the growth of an African software development sector (both Free Software and proprietary) is the recent pressure by certain multinational companies to file software patents in our national and regional patent offices. Whereas open standards and Free Software are intended to be inclusive and encourage fair competition, patents are exclusive and anti-competitive in their nature. Whereas there are some industries in which the temporary monopoly granted by a patent may be justified on the grounds of encouraging innovation, there is no reason to believe that society benefits from such monopolies being granted for computer program “inventions”. The continued growth in the quantity and quality of Free Software illustrates that such protection is not required to drive innovation in software. Indeed all of the current so-called developed countries built up their considerable software industries in the absence of patent protection for software. For those same countries to insist on patent protection for software now is simply to place protectionist barriers in front of new comers. As the economist, Ha-Joon Chang, observed: having reached the top of the pile themselves they now wish to kick away the ladder....
One cannot be in Dakar without being painfully aware of the tragic history of the slave trade. For three hundred years, the Maison des Esclaves (Slave House) on Gorée Island, was a hub in the system of forceful transportation of Africans as slaves to the plantations of the West Indies and the southern states of America. Over the same period people were being brought as slaves from the Malay Archipelago and elsewhere to South Africa. The institution of slavery played such a fundamental role in the early development of our current global economy, that by the end of the 18th century, the slave trade was a dominant factor in the globalised system of trade of the day.
As we find ourselves today in this new era of the globalised Knowledge Economy there are lessons we can and must draw from that earlier era. That a crime against humanity of such monstrous proportions was justified by the need to uphold the property rights of slave owners and traders should certainly make us more than a little cautious about what should and should not be considered suitable for protection as property.
Here's just a whiff from Novell's Complaint of what it accuses Microsoft of doing:
90. Third, Microsoft unilaterally made the proprietary Rich Text Format
("RTF") of Microsoft Word the standard file format for text-based documents in
applications developed for Windows. Upon capturing the standard, Microsoft
strategically withheld the specification to injure competitors, including Novell.
91. As Microsoft knew, a truly standard file format that was open to all ISVs
would have enhanced competition in the market for word processing applications,
because such a standard allows the exchange of text files between different word
processing applications used by different customers. A user wishing to exchange a text
file with a second user running a different word processing application could simply
convert his file to the standard format, and the second user then could convert the file
from the standard format into his own word processor's format. Thus, a law firm, for
instance, could continue to use WordPerfect (which was the favorite word processor of
the legal profession), so long as it could convert and edit client documents created in
Microsoft Word, if that is what clients happened to use. Microsoft knew that if it
controlled the convertibility of documents through its control of the RTF standard, then
Microsoft would be able to exclude competing word processing applications from the
market and force customers to adopt Microsoft Word, as it soon did.
92. The specifications for RTF were readily available to Microsoft's
applications developers, because RTF was the format they themselves developed for
Microsoft's office productivity applications. Microsoft withheld the RTF specifications
from Novell, however, forcing Novell to engage in a perpetual, costly effort to comply
with a critical "industry standard that was, in reality, nothing more than the
preference of its chief competitor, Word. Indeed, whenever Word changed its own file
format, Microsoft unilaterally and identically changed the RTF standard for Windows,
forcing Novell and other ISVs constantly to redevelop their applications. In this
manner, Microsoft gave Word a permanent, insurmountable lead in time-to-market,
and made document conversions difficult for users otherwise interested in running
non-Microsoft applications. Many WordPerfect users were thus forced to switch to
Microsoft Word, which predictably monopolized the word processing market.
93. Fourth, Microsoft unilaterally announced that other features of Word
were to be considered Windows standards. One important example is the "tool bar,"
which typically runs across the top of the PC's screen in applications operating on
Windows. Microsoft's tool bar originated in the Microsoft Office applications, such as
Word and Excel, while ISVs such as Novell developed competing features, such as
WordPerfect's more widely admired "button bar." Unable to design a better feature
than WordPerfect's, Microsoft simply declared its toolbar to be the Windows standard,
supplanting WordPerfect's button bar and other competitors' offerings. As in the case
of RTF, Microsoft forced Novell to delay its time-to-market while redeveloping its
applications to an inferior standard. Because these standards were lifted directly from
Microsoft's own applications, those applications, by definition, were always
"compatible" with the standards.
94. Fifth, Microsoft made other inferior features de facto industry standards,
by preventing Novell and other competitors from presenting certain of their own
features, such as Novell's QuickFinder, on the desktop. The government alleged and
the Court held in the Government Suit that Microsoft was liable for excluding the
features of certain other ISVs from the desktop in the same manner. See 253 F.3d at 62,
64; Findings of Fact ¶¶ 212-214; Gov't Compl. ¶¶ 24-25.
95. QuickFinder, Novell's search technology, was faster and more advanced
than Microsoft's own "find" capability. QuickFinder enabled users to create search
criteria across the computer's different storage devices and to search files by name, text,
and date. Because Microsoft prevented Novell from presenting QuickFinder on the
desktop, QuickFinder could only be used when running WordPerfect; Microsoft's own
finder technology, with exclusive display on the desktop, could be used anywhere in
the computing environment, gaining an unfair advantage over Novell's otherwise
Sound familiar? Now, how about the the references to undefined proprietary Microsoft stuff in OOXML? See any wiggle room for Microsoft to make sure it is never really competing on a fair playing field, should that be its desire? Here's the Novell section of its Complaint on withholding technical documentation:
2. Microsoft's Anticompetitive Withholding of Technical
Information Concerning; Earlier Versions of Windows
96. Microsoft withheld critical information concerning earlier versions of the
Windows operating system, thereby giving itself a time-to-market lead in the
applications markets. Microsoft held and extended this lead following Novell's merger
with WordPerfect by virtue of the anticompetitive acts alleged above. Microsoft's
anticompetitive acts, both pre- and post-dating Novell's merger with WordPerfect, were
committed as part of a continuing violation designed to maintain Microsoft's monopoly
in the operating systems market and to achieve and maintain monopolies in the office
productivity applications markets. Independent, overt acts during the period in which
Novell owned the rights to WordPerfect inflicted new and accumulating harm on
97. Microsoft refused to disclose technical specifications that were required to
overcome an operating system flaw known as the "64k (meaning 64,000 bytes of)
memory limitation,'' which adversely affected critical features of WordPerfect.
Specifically, the menu feature in WordPerfect consumed well in excess of 70 percent of
the operating system's limited memory. Using such an inordinate amount of memory
could cause a PC to crash.
98. Microsoft's API documentation did not disclose sufficient information to
cure this limitation. In addition, the Microsoft support personnel, who were assigned to
help Novell solve such problems pursuant to a paid subscription to Microsoft's support
program, simply refused to provide the information. The denial of this crucial
information forced Novell to develop a costly and difficult solution, delaying the
shipment of WordPerfect for Windows, just when Windows was replacing the MS-DOS
platform, on which WordPerfect was the dominant word processing application.
Microsoft's denial of information also increased the risk of performance problems with
Novell's products, and it created programming difficulties for ISVs who wished to
develop applications compatible with WordPerfect, thereby diminishing the
commercial appeal of WordPerfect.
99. By contrast, because Microsoft's own applications developers had access
to complete specifications for the operating system, comparable features of Microsoft
Word consumed only a small percentage of the limited memory, and Microsoft
experienced no delay in reaching the market.
100. The 64k memory limitation also caused degrading functionality in
WordPerfect's dialog boxes, which guide the user through the execution of certain
functions, such as the "save as" function. Opening multiple dialog boxes in
WordPerfect consumed a significant amount of memory, which could cause the PC to
crash. Microsoft was aware of the problem, and incorporated into Windows a solution
called Dialog Box Manager ("DBM). Microsoft refused to document this feature of
Windows to competing ISVs, however, making it available exclusively to Microsoft's
own applications developers.
101. As a consequence, Novell had to reduce the functionality of its
application and split its more complex dialogs into several boxes, making WordPerfect
more difficult to use. As always, the effort to overcome the lack of information cost
WordPerfect crucial time-to-market.
102. Microsoft Word's developers had access to the required information all
along. They "solved" the problem by making undocumented calls to the secret DBM in
Windows. Indeed, when WordPerfect's developers first encountered the problem, they
observed Word in operation, to see if it was consuming the same amount of memory;
using developers' tools that monitor the interactions between applications and
operating systems, the WordPerfect developers saw Word making calls to the
undocumented DBM. Even when confronted with this information, Microsoft's ISV
"support" personnel would not tell the WordPerfect's developers how to call the DBM.
103. Microsoft also harmed Novell by hiding the computer-based training
("CBT") "hooks," or interfaces, in Windows, which Microsoft Word and Excel
employed to train their users. Novell's developers requested information regarding
these undocumented hooks, but they were advised that no information was available to
ISVs. Microsoft's ISV support personnel acknowledged, however, that Microsoft's own
applications developers were using the hooks.
104. Microsoft's refusal to document the CBT hooks made Novell's
applications more difficult to use, thereby providing less value to consumers and
increasing Novell's customer support costs, further impairing Novell's sales efforts and
delaying the release of Novell's applications.
105. Microsoft also refused to resolve Windows-related bugs affecting
Novell's WordPerfect, Quattro Pro, and related applications as aggressively as it
resolved bugs affecting its own applications. This discriminatory treatment adversely
affected the performance of Novell's applications, causing consumers to believe that
Novell's applications were inferior to Microsoft's competing applications.
106. Further, Microsoft excluded WordPerfect and Quattro Pro developers
from technical conferences and porting labs, which are opportunities for developers to
"debug" their Windows applications and otherwise ensure integration with Windows.
As a result of Novell's exclusion from these conferences, its applications suffered a
greater incidence of malfunctions, which were often caused by Windows itself,
prolonged development efforts, increased customer frustration, and reduced sales. In
contrast, Microsoft's applications developers routinely had access to the developers of
Windows, whenever convenient to resolve technical problems or incorporate new
functions into their applications.
107. Microsoft also refused to provide a simple remedy for a phenomenon
referred to as "DLL Hell," which adversely affected non-Microsoft applications running
on the Windows platform. "Dynamic Link Libraries" ("DLLs") are files containing
specific lines of code that must be present in specific places on the PC if applications are
to operate properly on Windows. Microsoft often changed the functions of the DLLs
from one version of Windows to the next, without changing the documentation
provided to ISVs. As a result, Novell was forced to implement elaborate procedures,
which degraded the performance of WordPerfect and sometimes required
WordPerfect's users to "double reboot" their computers. This phenomenon is
commonly referred to as "DLL Hell."
108. Since Microsoft Office developers had timely access to information
concerning the changing DLLs, installing their software did not result in "DLL Hell."
Because of this advantage, OEMs had additional incentive to distribute Word and not
to avoid the technical support issues "DLL Hell" raised.
109. To prevent "DLL Hell," Microsoft needed merely to document "version"
information whenever it changed a DLL. Microsoft was fully aware of the problem and
this simple solution, but refused to implement it.
110. The above-described anticompetitive acts during the development of
successive versions of Windows, including Windows 95 and its integrated browsing
functions, unlawfully hindered the efforts of Novell to develop word processing and
other office productivity applications to compete against applications developed by
Microsoft. They lacked any legitimate business justification. The only purpose of this
conduct was to maintain and/or achieve monopolies in the operating systems and office
productivity applications markets.
111. The above-described anticompetitive acts had their intended effect.
Hidden features of each successive version of Windows, including Windows 95 and its
integrated browsing functions, substantially delayed the release of Novell's office
productivity applications, giving Microsoft's own applications a significant time-to-
market lead. It was the perpetual nature of this lead, and Microsoft's exercise of its
unilateral power to protect its lead by strategically withholding information and
otherwise abusing its operating system monopoly during development of Windows 95,
that ultimately forced Novell to sell the WordPerfect assets at a staggering loss.
So, now you know what the case is about. Microsoft tried to get the case dismissed, and while
four counts were dismissed, two were not [PDF], and you can read Microsoft's arguments in part in this document [PDF]. However, despite appealing all the way to the Supreme Court, the case, the two counts, I and VI not dismissed, will now go ahead. If you recall, when Novell signed the patent peace deal with Microsoft, it told us that this case was not part of the deal, and they meant it.
Here are the two claims that will now go forward:
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
A. Count I: Monopolization Of The Intel-Compatible Operating
151. Novell incorporates the allegations in paragraph 1 through 150 above.
152. Microsoft possessed monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible
PC operating systems software.
153. Microsoft willfully and wrongfully obtained and maintained its
monopoly power in the Intel-compatible operating systems market by engaging in
anticompetitive conduct to thwart the development of products that threatened to
weaken the applications barrier to entry, including Novell's WordPerfect word
processing application and its other office productivity applications, in violation of
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.§ 2.
154. Through this misconduct, Microsoft has harmed consumers and
competition by, without limitation, depriving consumers of the lower prices and more
rapid pace of innovation that competition would have brought.
155. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Microsoft's misconduct,
Novell was damaged by, without limitation, lost sales of office productivity
applications and a diminution in the value of Novell's assets, reputation, and goodwill
in amounts to be proven at trial. Novell's injury is of the type the antitrust laws are
intended to prohibit and thus constitutes antitrust injury. ...
F. Count VI: Exclusionary Agreements In Unreasonable Restraint Of
174. Novell incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 173 above.
175. Microsoft's agreements with OEMs and others not to license or
distribute Novell's office productivity applications or to do so only on terms that
materially disadvantaged these products unreasonably restrained trade by restricting
the access of Novell's office productivity applications to significant channels of
distribution in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1.
176. Through this misconduct, Microsoft has harmed consumers and
competition by depriving consumers of the lower prices and more rapid pace of
innovation that competition would have brought.
177. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of Microsoft's misconduct,
Novell was damaged by, without limitation, lost sales of its applications and a
diminution in the value of Novell's assets, reputation, and goodwill in amounts to be
proven at trial. Novell's injury is of the type the antitrust laws are intended to prevent
and thus constitutes antitrust injury.
Update: It has been brought to my attention that Rob Weir did a technical analysis of this case in the OOXML context.
|Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 01:00 PM EDT|
|If there are any, in such a short article.|
[ Reply to This | # ]
- Correction to the Newspicks...... - Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 01:09 PM EDT
- Correction to the corrections thread! Not a "short" article. - Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 01:30 PM EDT
- Broken Link - Authored by: jerel2u on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- "46 103. Microsoft also..." - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 02:48 PM EDT
- Corrections here please, to assist PJ - Authored by: rkhalloran on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 02:53 PM EDT
- Corrections here please, to assist PJ - Authored by: devnull13 on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- No... - Authored by: LocoYokel on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 10:29 PM EDT
- "Concerning; Earlier" : remove the semi-colon - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 08:12 PM EDT
|Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 01:02 PM EDT|
|It would be most helpful if you would kindly indicate which newspick item you|
are referring to in the title of your post.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 01:06 PM EDT|
|Please make clickable links where possible.|
Under no circumstances should
on-topic material go in this thread. It really upsets some people....
[ Reply to This | # ]
- Holy Lawsuits, Batman! Shades of ODF vs OOXML! - Authored by: OmniGeek on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 01:21 PM EDT
- Ohio Voting Machines Seized - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 03:50 PM EDT
- satire .. - Authored by: emacsuser on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- OLPCs - Authored by: LongTimeLurker on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 03:58 PM EDT
- Odd Patent Lawsuit: Gibson Sues Activision Over Guitar Hero - Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- Prior art - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- SCO files 10Q with SEC - Authored by: Laomedon on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 05:57 PM EDT
- MS to be blamed for F1 problems in Australia? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 08:12 PM EDT
- Google Summer of Code - list of mentoring projects - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 10:47 PM EDT
- OT: Vista == RIAA parachute? - Authored by: grouch on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 11:25 PM EDT
|Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 01:15 PM EDT|
|So the Supreme Court would appear to be free from the malign influence of Gates
and Ballmer. That is very encouraging indeed, considering in how many other
places they have peddled their influence.|
No doubt the trial will be very
interesting, and although I have very serious doubts about the ethics of Novell,
I do hope they win this one. WordPerfect was and is much better than Word.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 02:31 PM EDT|
|for all documents that get made public, so they cannot be |
THEY'RE ALL GONE !!!!!
by a settlement
[ Reply to This | # ]
|Authored by: rcweir on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 03:51 PM EDT|
|I did a little technical analysis of the Novell complaint back in January,
drawing some parallels to the kinds of standards abuse we still see today. You
can find it over
[ Reply to This | # ]
|Authored by: hAckz0r on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 04:52 PM EDT|
|It seems to me that Microsoft would have known there was a law suit with Novel|
on "interoperability" issues. Maybe all the money that Novell walked
away with was MS's attempt to get Novell to just forget this one. After all, we
know that MS doesn't do things like give away free money to its competitors for
no good reason.
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only
[ Reply to This | # ]
|Authored by: Yossarian on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 05:27 PM EDT|
1) Novell can cause a huge damage to Microsoft by requesting
related documents in discovery and then presenting them in an
open court room. It can also hurt the attempts to push OOXML.
Novell market cap is around $2,000,000,000. Will not it be
cheaper, for MS, to just "bite the bullet", buy Novell out,
(or settle out of court), and avoid the publicity?
2) If Microsoft will decide to buy Novell, can such a move
be blocked by third parties because of anti-trust issues?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|Authored by: webster on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 05:29 PM EDT|
...The snip says"
__________"The suit was brought in 2004 by Waltham, Mass.-based Novell
Inc., which said in court papers that Microsoft "deliberately targeted and
destroyed" its WordPerfect and QuattroPro programs in order to protect its
Windows operating system monopoly...."______
It seems like the Monopoly used its operating system monopoly to destroy
WordPerfect and QuattroPro in order to extend its OS monopoly into
wordprocessing programs and spreadsheats programs. By delaying and destroying
WP and QP compatibility with their monopoly OS, they promoted their own
wordprocessor program, "Word," and spreadsheet, "Excel."
This is huge. WP was big and remains popular today in legal circles. Given the
destruction of the WP base, they can claim a significant percentage of Monopoly
Office gross as damages.
They were not protecting the os monopoly. They were using that monopoly power
to destroy some competitors. Something they are masters at.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 05:45 PM EDT|
I do wish Novell would not use the phrase "RTF standard" in its filings. RTF
isn't any sort of "standard". It's just a Microsoft proprietary format like .doc
or .xls. It may be readable/writable by several different Microsoft products,
but that doesn't make it a "standard".
[ Reply to This | # ]
- RTF - Authored by: tknarr on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 06:25 PM EDT
- RTF - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 07:50 PM EDT
- RTF - Authored by: theMutant on Tuesday, March 18 2008 @ 07:32 PM EDT
|Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 05:51 PM EDT|
This is a big win for Novell.
I agree that it's good news. But
it isn't really a "win", much less a "big win". Rather, it lets the lawsuit go
forward so that a judge and/or jury can decide, at some far-off future date,
whether Microsoft or Novell "wins".
Remember that in fighting that
lawsuit, Microsoft can easily afford to spend several times Novell's entire
[ Reply to This | # ]
|Authored by: sproggit on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 07:17 PM EDT|
|I don't mean this to be a rhetorical question - and certainly not as cynical as|
it sounds, but what, exactly, are we supposed to infer is going on here?
For example, Novell have already won at least one court case against
Microsoft, if I recall correctly there was one related to Dos; then they took a
fistful of money from Microsoft over this "patent"ly absurd pledge
Now we see Novell once again gunning for them.
Is there a strategy at work here within Novell? Are we just seeing the visible
results of internal company political moves?
I don't see Novell as fawning upon Microsoft, yet at the same time I cannot
but help think they send out mixed messages sometimes. This might be
unfair or unkind to Novell, but one of the common traits of the greatest of our
individual FOSS advocates ( and take you pick from LT, ESR, RMS, Bruce
Perens and all the rest... Is not their obvious technical prowess, but their
unshakeable willingness to stick with their principles, their ethics and their
You would not, for example, expect to see a conversation like this:
(RMS) "The OOXML standard is technically defective in many aspects, and
has been intentionally written to allow Microsoft to extend it after
(Microsoft) "Hey, Richard, here's $100,000."
(RMS) "Actually, now I think that OOXML is pretty good".
The reason we don't see this is not merely because RMS is *far* too
principled to act like this, but also because if he were to do so, the FOSS
community would drop him like the proverbial hot potato.
So I do think it's quite fascinating to watch our rather odd affair with the
Ah well, it's certainly not dull around here.
Novell, if you're reading this, you really don't need to dance with Redmond...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 07:57 PM EDT|
Is there one country on this planet that has enacted laws and/or regulations
that prevents the kind of non-stop travesties that Gates, Jobs and others play
over and over again-from even starting in the first place? Does Switzerland -
likely the only true Democracy?
And why hasn't any major organization
(NGO or otherwise) pursued a major campaign to get the legislation?
prevention I mean having to prove interoperability etc. in advance of putting
the product into the marketplace. For example, auto makers have to produce cars
that meet the pollution, safety and other standards.Seems like a no brainer to
me (well maybe because the size of my brain ;)
[ Reply to This | # ]
- The EU - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- The EU - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 18 2008 @ 08:37 AM EDT
- The EU - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, March 18 2008 @ 08:46 AM EDT
- The EU - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 18 2008 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 18 2008 @ 06:07 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 19 2008 @ 10:43 PM EDT
- Any Country Have Laws To Prevent Gates's Travesties - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 18 2008 @ 11:21 AM EDT
|Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 08:45 PM EDT|
Chief Justice John Roberts, who owns Microsoft stock, recused
himself from the decision
How come the esteemed Chief Justice must
recuse himself on grounds of owning MS stock, when members of Congress, having
received campaign contributions from Microsoft, can sit on committees dealing
[ Reply to This | # ]
|Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 17 2008 @ 09:05 PM EDT|
In paras 97 to 100 the "64k memory limitation" is probably the limitation of
directly addressable RAM of IBM PCs of 640KB. "64k" appears in the original PDF,
so the HTML in the article is a true reflection of the PDF.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Wednesday, March 19 2008 @ 06:37 AM EDT|
Novell's management effectively gorked the company when it signe
d the software patent litigation agreement with its largest competitor.
Since then, Novell has been working over time to include as many licensed
technologies into as many of its products as possible. The contract was
originally for 5 years, but can be dropped at anytime by either side.
The contract alienated Novell's main customers and pretty much the
entire open source user base. Novell management's lame excuses and pathetic
rationalization showed that they appear not to have even read the contract they
signed. The result of the contamination of Novell's distro and the alienation
of Novell's customers / former customers leave the company almost entirely
beholden to its main competitor.
So when the case finally goes to
court, if MS publicity circus needs the case to makes it that far, they will
make it go away: make me a sammich, Novell.
[ Reply to This | # ]