|
|
|
| Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
Most of this article is a transcription from the PDF. Before posting a
correction please check whether the error is in the original PDF file, in which
case you do not need to post it.
If you do post, please summarize in the Title box as error->correction or
s/error/correction/ to make it easy to scan to avoid duplication of effort.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
| foulis -- not logged in [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: StormReaver on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 10:55 PM EDT |
He flings all his nonsensical, legally frivolous claims because there is no
material penalties for doing so. If he can fool a judge on some of them, then
that's great for him. If the judges' common sense is functioning, then the
worst that happens is his motions are denied (on something he was going to lose,
anyway).
Big deal. There is no penalty, so he hasn't lost anything. He knew that he was
going to lose, so why not try? He might catch a judge off-guard one day, and
win what he was never expecting to win.
It's the only logical reason I can think of for a smart person doing seemingly
dumb things.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 11:06 PM EDT |
What do we believe are the motives for UEFI signed boot?
Just one of, or more than one of:
* Restrict malware;
* Back doors;
* Restrict competition;
* Enforce Digital Restrictions Management;
* Enforce planned obsolescence;
(and/or)
* Other?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, June 09 2012 @ 01:34 AM EDT |
Please stay off topic in these threads
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, June 09 2012 @ 06:10 AM EDT |
THE COURT: I hope the reason for my impatience is clear. This case
is not about trying -- about the dominance that Word might have obtained over
WordPerfect. And it's not. That claim is time barred and that ruling is subject
to appeal. And the Fourth Circuit has ruled on it. The Tenth Circuit can do it.
But the fact of the matter is to the extent this is about acquiring or
maintaining monopoly in the operating systems market, and your own client just
testified and your own witness just testified that it was a better product and
WordPerfect was going to use it and it was going to be -- it's clear as a bell
to me...
MR. JOHNSON: I think this is important that
we bring this back to what the Fourth Circuit said and why we're here. Okay.
Remember that what Mr. Raikes said was that if we own these key franchises, and
that may have to do with monopolization of the applications market, that may yet
to do, but that's not what we're trying here. What Mr. Raikes, if we own those
key franchises, if we dominate on top of Windows, we widen the moat protecting
Windows operating --
THE COURT: Your own client just testified that if
WordPerfect was the word processing application, it would be using Windows 95
too. That is what he just testified to. It doesn't matter. Whatever Mr. Raikes
perceived, the fact of the matter is the realty of the marketplace was that they
had a better product, it was somebody else's work, as the witness already
testified to. And the fact of the matter is whether it was WordPerfect or
whether it was Word or whatever, it was going to use Windows 95, and this case
is about Windows 95, and it was a better product.
THE
COURT: ...and that's why I thought more about it over the weekend. The fact of
the matter is it was still intending whatever -- I understand that. But
Microsoft, under your theory, was embarking upon a course of conduct to maintain
its monopoly frankly after 1996, which itself is an issue. But I will give you
the benefit of the doubt on that. The fact of the matter is Novell and
eventually Corel wanted to use -- wanted these APIs and namespace extensions so
that it could take advantage of the technological superiority of the new product
that Microsoft had produced.
MR. JOHNSON: That's right, Your Honor.
Please, because those questions you asked are very probative. You said they were
prepared to take a short term loss. You said that. They were prepared to stop
WordPerfect and take the loss to make their product, Windows 95, less valuable,
less innovative in order to get rid of
WordPerfect.
THE COURT: Maybe that was its intent, but
it had nothing to do with the fact happening in the marketplace because
WordPerfect wanted to use Windows... Because it was a better
product.
After all my comments about Judge Motz' appalling
attitude, I have to eat my words. I still think Mr. Tulchin is a slithy tove,
though.
Judge Motz has pointed out that Microsoft's appalling
anticompetitive behaviour against Wordperfect in order to put Word into the
ascendency is a case that has already been decided in another court
room.
Mr. Johnson has shown that Microsoft appreciated that damaging
WordPerfect in favour of Word deepened the protective moat around Windows 95.
However, the judge says that what Microsfot was thinking was not the point.
Judge Motz points out that Mr Harrel had highlighted that the access to the
advanced features (settle down, now!) of Windows 95 was key to WordPerfect
defeating Word and that was the importance of access to those
features.
What Mr. Johnson has not demonstrated is how the success of
WordPerfect for Windows would have made the protective moat around Windows 95
more shallow.
The only way to demonstrate that is if it could be shown
that those same advanced features (I won't warn you again!) were made available
by the WordPerfect suite on another platform in order that the middleware
advantage was provided and the Windows 95 features were less of a barrier to
using alternative operating systems. At the very least, there needed to be a
product plan to take this advantage. Perhaps that was what Tulchin was driving
at when he was grilling Mr. Harrel about his place in the organisation and his
lack of responsibility for product policy.
I'm beginning to think that
the 12th juror was right. The jury found, unanimously, that Microsoft behaved
anti-competitively against Novell. I am wondering if the other juror's were
satisfied that WordPerfect was damaged, but missed that it was the middleware
aspect that was at issue and not the advantage to Word.
If I was a
juror and it had been made clear that it is the damage to the middleware aspects
of the WordPerfect suite that is at issue, I don't think that, at this stage of
the trial, I would think the case has been proven.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 09 2012 @ 05:07 PM EDT |
I suspect that what we may be seeing is a case of over confidence, a belief
that no one is as good as he is.
That's just a guess. But it matches what we've seen in court documents. In
any case, Boies has a terrible record on cases involving software. The last
one that I can remember him winning was the Microsoft anti-trust case.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
