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 Gives Up, Says It Can't Win: Files an Antitrust Complaint Against Google
Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 12:35 PM EDT

Well, it's official, I take it. Android has won. Google has overturned Microsoft. Microsoft has now waved the white flag and admitted it is an also-ran in search and in mobile, and that it can't win on its own merits without outside help from regulators. That's what I get from its latest move, filing an antitrust complaint against Google with the EU Commission.

You know what I think? I think it means Microsoft still doesn't understand why it got into antitrust hot water, still accepts no responsibility for what happened to the company. I understood that better when I read the Paul Allen excerpt from his book in Vanity Fair. The upper management are portrayed as ethically empty. That would explain why Microsoft now seems to think that all it takes is a competitor to complain, and Google will end up like it did. That leaves out a powerful factor, which is that Microsoft really did abuse its monopoly position and it did harm to the market, to cybersecurity, to customers, to competitors in ways that are disturbing to the rest of us. No one had to use partners and subsidiaries to cook up something to complain about to make it look like it was doing bad things. They really did them, and that is why they ended up in antitrust hot water.

If you've forgotten, Groklaw has an entire page on Microsoft litigation, with a section on the antitrust matter before the EU Commission and another on the US v. Microsoft antitrust case here in America. Or just read the exhibits from the Comes v. Microsoft antitrust litigation that Groklaw is painstakingly putting into searchable plain text for historians, so no one will ever forget what really happened. Here are all the documents that survived the shredder in Caldera v. Microsoft.

After you read all that, think about Google. It's not the same at all, is it? So this laughable conspiracy to try to hold Google's feet to the fire will not end the way it does in Microsoft's dreams, I don't think. Because Google isn't Microsoft. They come from different planets. And that will make all the difference.

Oh, look. A Microsoft partner, Facebook, is complaining about Google because it insists on watching what Facebook does on Androids:

Google says its procedures are about quality control, fixing bugs early, and building toward a "common denominator" experience, says John Lagerling, director of global Android partnerships at Google. "After that, the customization can begin."

Over the past few months, according to several people familiar with the matter, Google has been demanding that Android licensees abide by "non-fragmentation clauses" that give Google the final say on how they can tweak the Android code—to make new interfaces and add services—and in some cases whom they can partner with. Google's Rubin says that such clauses have always been part of the Android license, but people interviewed for this story say that Google has recently tightened its policies. Facebook, for example, has been working to fashion its own variant of Android for smartphones. Executives at the social network are unhappy that Google gets to review Facebook's tweaks to Android, say two people who weren't comfortable being named talking about the business.

Did you not notice that it says "after that, the customization can begin"? So Google wants quality at launches and then you can still do whatever you want. *That* is the complaint? By the way, control over what is accepted is very much harmonious with Open Source. Linus doesn't let just anything go into the Linux kernel. People complain about that all the time, but it ensures quality and direction.

I truly do hope Google watches Facebook like a hawk, actually, given Facebook's track record on privacy. When I see a phone or tablet or any device that advertises that it easily enables you to post on Facebook, I run like a bunny. I don't trust them at all with my privacy. Period. So, personally, I'm glad if Google watches them.

And, by the way, does Facebook have quality control standards on what outside companies can do with apps for Facebook, for example? I mean, come on.

And as for quality control, it's real. I have an acquaintance I finally got to get an Android phone, and wouldn't you know it, it couldn't play Angry Birds. She happened to get one that wasn't using the latest and greatest, and she was so mad about it she was going to drop the phone. It was possible to finally slide it on sideways, so to speak, and get it to run, and now she loves the phone, but quality control and consistency are hardly unnatural business concerns. Some of the stuff companies are putting out there bring the brand down, and that isn't Google's fault. In fact, if I were evil and wanted to harm Android, I'd put out some piece of Android junk and cackle about it, and take money from whoever might pay me to do an evil deed like that. I remember netbooks.

So frankly the flood of complaining about Google looks to me like a coordinated campaign. There. I said it. I think reporters should research that and write about it next. I'll bet you hit pay dirt.

Google's response:

“We’re not surprised that Microsoft has done this, since one of their subsidiaries was one of the original complainants,” said Al Verney, a spokesman for Google in Brussels.

Google was “happy to explain to anyone how our business works,” Mr. Verney said.

And why not?

And speaking of Microsoft and antitrust, did you see this deal, the French Defense Ministry buying from Microsoft Ireland instead of from the US? Is that legal?

How about the state laws Microsoft is lobbying for these days? Are those laws Constitutional? Even minimally fair? Anybody looking into that?

In short, irony is dead. We have entered a particularly malicious Antitrust Wonderland, where up is down and it's Off With Your Heads for no reason other than you've angered a capricious and peculiarly power-mad queen.

P.S. Some of you will now tell me that companies have to be cut throat, that their sole obligation is to maximize shareholder value. First, that's never been true. Second, I'd like to share with you some info someone sent me from an article on Lexology. Lexology is subscription based, and it's more for lawyers than us mere mortals, but the article, Life Outside Delaware, is really interesting. It talks about the common knowledge that Delaware attracts new businesses by providing benefits to incorporating there, but it says that other states have benefits too that have been inspiring some companies to move elsewhere. Ohio, for example, provides some significant differences from the Delaware code. Here's one the article highlights:

Allowing directors to consider (i) the interests of the coporation's employees, suppliers, creditors and customers; (ii) the economy of the state and nation; (iii) community and societal considerations; and (iv) long-term, as well as short-term interests of the corporation.
As a result, Ohio is now winning the battle for its home-based corporations, and Abercrombie and Fitch are currently considering re-incorporating there. I think you can see the benefit to having such considerations built into your incorporated status if shareholders try to sue you. And heaven only knows we saw what Delaware is like in the SCO bankruptcy. You can be really bad and get away with it there, or at least that is what I took away from Delaware.

But it's a choice. No one has to be bad. Evil is not a business requirement. I believe it was Google who pointed that out, was it not?


  


Microsoft Gives Up, Says It Can't Win: Files an Antitrust Complaint Against Google | 435 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Level the playing field... With heavy artillery
Authored by: Winter on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 01:16 PM EDT
Microsoft cannot compete and wants to level the playing field, with heavy
(legal) artillery.



---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic thread
Authored by: Just_Bri_Thanks on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 01:29 PM EDT
No on topic posts. Microsoft and Google verboten.

---
Bri. Just Bri. Thank you.
(With a long i sound.)
Without qualification, certification,
exception, or (hopefully) bias.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks thread
Authored by: Just_Bri_Thanks on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 01:30 PM EDT
Please include a link to the article, as they tend to move
quickly off the front page.

---
Bri. Just Bri. Thank you.
(With a long i sound.)
Without qualification, certification,
exception, or (hopefully) bias.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes documents
Authored by: Just_Bri_Thanks on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 01:31 PM EDT
Please use the title of your reply to indicate which document
you are assisting with.

---
Bri. Just Bri. Thank you.
(With a long i sound.)
Without qualification, certification,
exception, or (hopefully) bias.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread
Authored by: Just_Bri_Thanks on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 01:32 PM EDT
Do we need one for a short editorial like this? Better safe
than sorry.

---
Bri. Just Bri. Thank you.
(With a long i sound.)
Without qualification, certification,
exception, or (hopefully) bias.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tying up resources
Authored by: swehner on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 01:33 PM EDT
I think MS is simply tying up resources by filing complaints. The more resources
spent on other companies, the less on MS.

S

[ Reply to This | # ]

Complaining About Android
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 01:43 PM EDT
Have you noticed, before Google updated their policy to provide better
consistency across devices...

Story: Android is fragmented!
Story: Android has shoddy applications!

And now...

Story: Google are being too strict in controlling fragmentation!
Story: Google/Android now not open-source friendly (due to being locked
down/controlling the platform)!

That's like saying: the Linux kernel and Wine are not open source because they
have strict coding/review/Quality Assurance practices.

Another thing that makes me laugh is that Honeycomb has only recently been
released and there are stories like:

Story: Few apps (~20) for Honeycomb tablets (no-one wants a tablet to run phone
apps)!

Which is because it has only just been released and takes a while for the
developers to produce applications.

I am not sure how much of this is due to Apple/Microsoft influence, but it
appears that way (look at the comments from the usual suspects like Stephen
Elop). Anything Android related, spin it in a negative way (even if Google are
working to address the previous criticisms).

[ Reply to This | # ]

The article seems to beg the question
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 01:54 PM EDT
Where is Google incorporated?

---
There is nothing unknowable—only that which is yet to be known. —The Fourth Doctor (Tom Baker)

[ Reply to This | # ]

French Defense Ministry
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 02:15 PM EDT
And speaking of Microsoft and antitrust, did you see this deal, the French Defense Ministry buying from Microsoft Ireland instead of from the US? Is that legal?
A lot of large companies based in the US opened manufacturing facilities in Ireland over the last 25 years or so, mainly because of the low cost of labor, and also because if you manufacture it in Europe, it is easier to sell it into Europe.

Microsoft's European final assembly plant is in Ireland, as is Novell's. This is where they burn the discs and stuff the discs and paperwork into the box and shrink wrap it up before they distribute it throughout Europe.

Why the French government should buy MS software at all is the big question, but if they are going to buy MS software, why should they have to buy it from MS in the US rather than in Europe?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft didn't give up. This is business as usual.
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 02:18 PM EDT
Microsoft has always fought dirty and has (almost) never competed on technical merit.

This is just another example of Microsoft using techniques from the playbook of dirty tricks that have been used to great effect in the political sphere for over a decade. This one is:

dirty trick #4
Accuse your opponent of doing the bad things you yourself are actual doing.
This technique is extremely effective even if Google is eventually cleared of all charges. The claims that Google is evil are shouted from the rooftops while their eventual exoneration is relegated to a one paragraph story buried on page 17. These charges also provide excellent cover for Microsoft the next time they are discovered violating anti-trust laws.

Recently I have seen three examples of Microsoft (I presume) using another political dirty trick:

dirty trick #3
Attack your opponent's strength.
There have been at least two widely publicized reports that Google and Android are closed and therefore evil. One report was about Google deactivating a rogue app remotely that contained malware. This was spun to make it look like Google was Big Brother re-incarnate. The other Android example was reported here in the newspicks where Google was blasted for not releasing an alpha version of Android fast enough to please the people who routinely buy and sell operating systems made of source code that is never released to the public. This was spun to make it look like Google was evil and if you wanted to use something more open you should look to Apple or Microsoft.

A third example was an attack on Google directly after they made the highly unorthodox move of proposing actual net neutrality legislation. This was spun upside down and backwards to make it look like Google fighting against net neutrality.

This anti-trust flim-flam is just one of many barrages against Google and is part of a long history of Microsoft fighting dirty. It is not at all a sign of Microsoft giving up. This is a basic part of the general business model. They wait (either intentionally or out of stupidity or lack of neccessity) for other companies to innovate. Once they see what is successful in the marketplace, they launch their own product to compete and then fight long and hard and dirty until they wrest a significant market share, hopefully destroying the original innovator in the process.

IMO, the sign that Microsoft is giving up will be when they stop fighting dirty and decide to finally compete based on the technical merits of their products. Unfortunately for all of us, the dirty fighting works so some people are richly rewarded for making a negative contribution to society while the people who are actually making a positive contribution get punished.

---
[ ] Obey DRM Restrictions
[X] Ignore DRM Restrictions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Power-mad queen?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 03:23 PM EDT
Ballmer?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft can open the Windows Phone code
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 03:31 PM EDT
Facebook can modify 'til its little heart is content. Problem solved!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Looking for old Gates quote
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 03:58 PM EDT
"P.S. Some of you will now tell me that companies have to be cut throat,
and that their sole obligation is to maximize shareholder value"

More than ten years ago, I read a mention in an online column of something
Bill Gates supposedly let slip, about the requirements of a successful
corporate CEO.

I didn't write down what Gates had said, and I have searching for it off and
on, ever since. But it was about the need for a smart CEO to know not only
precisely where the boundaries of legal corporate behaviour lay, but also how
close to the boundary one could go. There seemed to me as well to be some
iimplication that going over the line judiciously wherever possible was an
indication of superior executive ability.

I have never understood the whole issue of "fiduciary responsibility"

with regard to ethics. Microsoft perhaps more than any corporation in history
seems to include in any plan a careful risk analysis of how much it would cost
to be charged with a crime for any part of the plan. If there is little
likelihood of incurring unacceptable costs in court, then illegal actions are
actually preferred, as they actually have more to gain from illegal actions than

legal ones. Their experience tells them that no one else is likely, or willing,

to take the risks they do.

If anyone can locate the Gates quote, that would be great. My vague
recollection is that it was an industry "insider" columnist from back

somewhere in the 1990s.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Gives Up, Says It Can't Win: Files an Antitrust Complaint Against Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 04:12 PM EDT
lol, all I can say is lol :D

[ Reply to This | # ]

The nature of Microsoft
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 04:42 PM EDT

The upper management are portrayed as ethically empty.

Gates and Ballmer are portrayed - convincingly - as ethically empty. On the other hand, Paul Allen is not exactly an impartial observer.

I learned early on my career (I'm now retired) that there's only one way to deal with people like Gates as described by Allen: I mean people whose word is worth nothing, who regard agreements as ignorable unless they're written down, signed, witnessed, and legally enforceable.

That one way? Have nothing to do with them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It does not follow
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 04:59 PM EDT

Some people's brains seem to accept the following as logical:

1. Microsoft is evil.

2. Microsoft is fighting against Google.

 Therefore,

3. Google must be virtuous and good.

 

Sorry, PJ, but that does NOT follow. I agree with 1 and 2, but there is absolutely no logical connection between those two and point 3.

Google isn't as evil as Microsoft, but it's still an evil company that will not let wimpy concepts like ethics get in the way of making its top executives obscenely rich.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tit for tat
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 05:05 PM EDT
If Microsoft can or could force Google in allow access to YouTube, shouldn't
Microsoft also make software such as Office available to other Operating
Systems?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft not giving up, tablets are just a FAD
Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 05:16 PM EDT
PJ wrote:
> Android has won. [. . .]
> Microsoft has now waved the white flag and admitted
> it is an also-ran in search and in mobile, and that
> it can't win on its own merits



Bu, bu, but... Microsoft isn't giving up on tablets. Microsoft isn't even competing with tablets. Windows as a tablet OS? Windows Phone 7? Don't make me laugh.

After Microsoft tried to sell tablets for a decade and failed, Apple came along and in one stroke redefined the entire tablet market to be: a device that DOES NOT run Windows.

Microsoft isn't interested in tablets. Never was. Nevermind the tablet demos and hype of yesteryear. Ignore January 2010 when Ballmer was showing HP's tablet hyping Windows 7, and then later that day HP said the tablet would also run Android, thus deflating Ballmer's entire presentation.

Tablets might be a flash in the pan: Microsoft global chief strategy officer
As virtually the entire consumer electronics industry throws its weight behind tablet computers, Microsoft's global chief research and strategy officer Craig Mundie said today that he did not know whether the booming new category was here to stay.
So you see? Tablets are just a fad.

People don't really want mobile computers. They want to be tied with a ball and chain to their desktop PC. Or at least to a large heavy laptop. (Note: Microsoft killed the netbook threat by redefining a netbook to be something not very useful and then forcing OEMs with windows licenses to stick to that definition.)

People want what Microsoft wants: to remain stuck in the past. Desktop PC's forever! And everything that goes with them. Complex installation routines. Malware. Etc.


<sarcasm off>

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why Europe?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 05:21 PM EDT
Does MS realise this would be laughed out of court in the US?
Or is it just that they can't find any lawyers to take the case because
everybody is too busy with all 'phone(y) patent litigation?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Gives Up, Says It Can't Win: Files an Antitrust Complaint Against Google
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 05:22 PM EDT
"but quality control and consistency are hardly unnatural business
concerns"

Unless you happen to be Microsoft of cause.

---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he
considers himself your master.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tired of netbooks being knocked. --Microsoft Gives Up, Says It Can't Win: Files an Antitrust ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 08:07 PM EDT
"I remember netbooks."

Bought an Aspire One, and installed Ubuntu.

Runs great, is a very satisfying package. It's a nice little machine that is
not matched by anything else on the market. Pads don't have real keyboards,
laptops are too big.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Privacy / IE search defaults
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 08:07 PM EDT
In fairness, Google are the second-last company that should be complaining about
privacy violations. (Facebook being the last, of course.)

And of Course MS on Antitrust is aways a pot/kettle/black thing.

Not sure how many people here have to do frequent(ish) Windows deployments, but
the process used to select a search provider still favours Bing heavily.

- First you are asked if you want to use the default provider (Bing) or another
provider
- If you say you want to customise, first your settings are set to Bing (and
other MS-sponsored services) then you are taken to a page to select another
provider.
- As it's an Internet web page, and you are behind a web proxy, you have to have
set the proxy server in advance. Otherwise you default to Bing.
- The selected page does not work with the default server (protected access)
settings as it uses Javascript, so you need to disable assorted security
settings to select a different provider.
- Once you have selected a different provider, you need to explicitly set it as
default.
- Even once it is the default, Bing is listed in the search dropdown in IE as a
backup. Of course I usually remove it, as by that point i'm ticked off at
Microsoft. :-) Or more ticked off than usual at least.

Google is generally about eight entries into the list of providers. Yahoo and
ASK.com are usually higher in the list.

...Ronny

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Gives Up, Says It Can't Win: Files an Antitrust Complaint Against Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 08:54 PM EDT

The next sentence after the part PJ quoted from the Bloomberg article is interesting:

Google has also tried to hold up the release of Verizon (VZ) Android devices that make use of Microsoft's (MSFT) rival Bing search engine, according to two people familiar with the discussions

So, 95% share in search advertising, and using dirty tactics to keep rivals out. Sounds like Google deserves some anti-trust scrutiny.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Netbooks
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 09:13 PM EDT
PJ says "I remember netbooks."

True. But actually, my netbook works pretty good. I just had to upgrade the
memory and put Linux on it.

:-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Netbooks - Authored by: Wol on Friday, April 01 2011 @ 09:20 AM EDT
  • MS Tax - Authored by: complex_number on Friday, April 01 2011 @ 02:57 PM EDT
  • Netbooks - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 01 2011 @ 04:24 PM EDT
  • Netbooks - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 02 2011 @ 08:07 AM EDT
Microsoft Gives Up, Says It Can't Win: Files an Antitrust Complaint Against Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 31 2011 @ 11:20 PM EDT
I don't want to start a fight , but with news coming out about Googles new
aproval of andriod changes by carriers its now doing what many in the EU have
complained that MS has done with IE . Its trying to stop verizon from installing
Bing as the default search on verizon andriod phones.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Coming up.. Part 4.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 01 2011 @ 06:12 AM EDT
First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you

...


Or with tin foil hat firmly in place, Uncle BillyG has turned up with his
fistful of Dollars and bought the dregs of Greece,Portugal, Spain and Belgium
(he already owned Ireland which he uses as his own personal tax haven) in
exchange he gets his own personal attack dog.


Still, on the bright side, it looks like the world generally has had enough of
snarling dog leadership...



[ Reply to This | # ]

2005 again
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 01 2011 @ 07:02 AM EDT
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/microsoft-ceo-im-going-to-fing-kill-google
/2005/09/03/1125302772214.html

"Microsoft Corp. CEO Steve Ballmer vowed to "kill" internet
search leader Google Inc. in an obscenity-laced tirade, and Google chased a
prized Microsoft executive "like wolves," according to documents filed
in an increasingly bitter legal battle between the rivals."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell is Dead?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 01 2011 @ 02:27 PM EDT
As best I can tell:

Novell's appeal to the District Court of the Bankruptcy Courts approval of the
NewSCO sale was due no later than 21 March 2011.

I have not seen any reports of an appeal being filed, so apparently the sale
will stand.

Given the opacity of the sale documents, and the Bankruptcy Court's memorandum
and order, I read the sale to be a free pass for the seller/buyer to do anything
they want, and claim it was approved by the court. If you disagree, sue us.

I read the lack of an appeal to be Novell abandoning UNIX (or whatever they
thought they owned of UNIX.) Clearly the previously owed amounts will never be
paid, nor do I see Novell ever getting any future revenue. Nor are Novell's
rights under the previous sale to SCO-NewSCO going to be protected (This
Bankruptcy court has kept control of this case).

As for the copyright lawsuit, the bankruptcy court's order appears to make it
moot. Whatever the result of the appeal the Bankruptcy court seems to have
extinguished Novell's rights. By not appealing the Bankruptcy court order,
Novell seems to be abandoning the copyright fight as well.

My guess is that the new owner's plan to disassemble Novell, absorbing/reselling
the parts, and the UNIX part was deemed not worth the cost of the legal hassle
to protect it. Especially if somebody made it worth their while to walk away.

And this doesn't even consider the patent deal

Depressed
JG







[ Reply to This | # ]

thus spake zaraGateStra
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 02 2011 @ 06:38 AM EDT
“It’s not right for you to get half,” he said. “You had your salary at MITS while I did almost everything on BASIC without one back in Boston. I should get more. I think it should be 60-40.”

I’ve done most of the work on BASIC, and I gave up a lot to leave Harvard” he said. “I deserve more than 60 percent” .. “How much more?” “I was thinking 64-36

'Our formal partnership agreement .. had two other provisions of note .. in the event of “irreconcilable differences,” paragraph 12 stated, Bill could demand that I withdraw from the partnership'

Good Grief, billg has already bilked him twice over Allens share of the company and has already inserted a Get-Rid-of- Allen clause in the 'partnership'. That Allen couldn't see the writign on the wall I guess owes more to his own sense of personal integrity. As in most people assume the other fella possesses one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wait--you think GOOGLE is the one to save your privacy?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 02 2011 @ 02:24 PM EDT
I'm very much not a fan of Facebook's position or track record on user privacy
(the main reason I don't have a Facebook account).

But let's not be too hasty about Google being the white knight keeping your
information safe from Big Bad Facebook. Last time I checked, they were still
run by Eric "The only people concerned about privacy are people with
something to hide" Schmidt

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Gives Up, Says It Can't Win: Files an Antitrust Complaint Against Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 04 2011 @ 11:48 PM EDT
EU just has to ask itself one question when it looks at this
case.

can you use google in any browser of your choice? the
answer is yes I have never seen google not look the same in
any browser I feel like using.

you can't and never could say that about microsoft. period
end of case. google gives me choice and guess what I don't
have to use their search engine or their phone. but I chose
to. you can't say that about the pc world. I am forced to
buy windows when I buy a computer at a store.

enough said.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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

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